User talk:Rhododendrites: Difference between revisions

Template:Attempting wikibreak

Archives

June 2008 - September 2008 May 2013 - October 2013 November 2013 - December 2013 January 2014 - February 2014 March 2014 - April 2014 May 2014 - June 2014 July 2014 - September 2014 October 2014 - December 2014 January 2015 - February 2015 March 2015 - April 2015 May 2015 - June 2015 July 2015 - August 2015 September 2015 - October 2015 November 2015 - December 2015 January 2016 - February 2016

This is the talk page for User:Rhododendrites.

Thanks for removing that notice for proposed deletion. I got a notice stating she was not notable which is false and it was up for deletion. I will do what I can to improve the page. Will you? Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fishhead2100: Hi. I was just going through the articles that had been proposed for deletion yesterday (User:Cyde/List of current proposed deletions). That she looks to have hosted several of her own cooking shows says to me the article should at least have the benefit of going through AfD. I still have some of the sources up from when I did a search yesterday. They're not slam dunks, but they may be helpful, so I'll link them here. That said, I don't actually know anything about her and food shows/baking isn't really my thing -- just saw an article that didn't merit deletion. :) It's worth noting that I saw at least one of her shows was also proposed for deletion, so if you know more and know the shows to be independently notable, you might want to take a look. Sources: Vancouver Observer interview, Gastronomia & Cia, Georgia Straight, chch, Playback, Hello Magazine, on CTV, Canada.com. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late response. I appreciate the links. We can put the in the article where necessary. Also, we can format the current references to make them look better. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for anyone with an interest in this page and noticed that you deleted[1] quite a bit of content from it in May of last year, because the content was in a bulleted format with a promotional section title (milestones) rather than neutral and well-sourced prose in the article-body. You mentioned in your edit-summary that this content could be restored in proper prose, etc.

I've proposed a draft on the Talk page here that I think would address your concerns, as well as other promotion issues, and generally improve/expand/update the article. Because I have a financial connection with Smartsheet, I'm sharing the draft on the Talk page for consideration by a disinterested editor. If you have a minute to take a look, it would be greatly appreciated! David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 14:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CorporateM:  Done left a message at Talk:Smartsheet. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I have decided to take the issue on the list of converts article to the DRN. You are also mentioned there. [2]. Xtremedood (talk) 06:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to do restore, I tried to use the "undo" function! I'm sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmaocinneide (talk • contribs) 21:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Emmaocinneide: No worries, but please be careful not to add copyright violations to Wikipedia. In case you haven't seen them yet, I left a couple messages on your user talk page (User talk:Emmaocinneide). Please let me know if I can help to clarify anything. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hola! I want to add a section about Chaney's 26-count federal indictment for conspiracy and securities fraud in the 1980's, but I never did that before, so I don't know all of the ropes about formatting, etc. Is there a way I can put up a draft without messing up all of the beautifully organized work you did? Thanks for doing that BTW! Permstrump (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Permstrump: Well, in general I'd say feel free to do try whatever you want. If something gets messed up, we can always undo or fix it. But although I don't know exactly what you're planning, I have express concerns about that sort of addition in particular. Wikipedia has much stricter rules for content about living people than it does about anything else, and those rules generally apply to talk pages and user pages as well. See, for example, WP:BLPCRIME and the WP:BLP policy in general. The /Chaney page (as with the other on-wiki discussions) should really just be to track/coordinate/communicate/organize for the purpose of determining the best way to treat the various Chaney-related subjects on Wikipedia (and perhaps some problematic editors who worked on them, if applicable). To that end it's relevant to consider what's true, what's not true, what sources are real, what aren't real, what topics actually exist, what sources actually say, etc. because all of that directly affects how we write about the subjects (and whether we write about them at all). Determining whether there is a conflict of interest (though being careful not to "out" anyone) or sock puppetry likewise has a direct impact on Wikipedia content. So it makes sense to take various steps to figure that stuff out. But what we don't want to do is to produce a Chaney attack page or characterize him as having violated any laws that he has not been formally convicted of. If reliable secondary sources talk about it, sometimes that sort of thing is ok, but in general we try to avoid including legal allegations in all but exceptional circumstances. In short, use discretion. If it were me, and I determined the indictment were directly relevant to Wikipedia, I'd probably do something like link to "possibly related legal matters" without going into detail. There are hard rules, but their application requires careful contextual judgment. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: Well, that answers my next question. Hehe :) I was going to link to reports about his indictment from sec.gov and also the local paper that covered it during the trial is available on google news archives. He was found innocent, but it's a pretty convoluted story. If I post something in my own sandbox, will you be able to see it? Do the rules apply to my sandbox? I'd still want someone to check that it doesn't violate any policies before I post it, not just formatting, etc. I do keep having to catch myself. I won't mind if you give me a nudge if/when I accidentally cross the line a bit. :) Speaking of, should I redact most of this comment? Permstrump (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Permstrump: I don't consider myself an expert on the subtleties of WP:BLP. Where there is doubt, ask at WP:BLPN. There's a lot of gray area, but I tend to play it safe when it comes to legal terms and discussion of allegations. There are other ways to word things, anyway. Think of it this way: Wikipedia as a source of information about people is a powerful medium. Information about someone on Wikipedia can have consequences. Many people have sued both the Wikimedia Foundation and individual editors because of the way they've been depicted on the site, usually without much success. Once in a while, it makes national headlines like in the Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident, where a journalist was tied to the assassination of JFK in his article for several months (!). Were Chaney a low-profile individual (I don't think he qualifies as such), referring to him as a "con artist" and casting doubt on a not guilty judgment would be, in my view, a very dark gray area :) But he's a public person, and we're on a talk page, so it's sort of an ash gray rather than gunmetal. In a worst case scenario, coverage of allegations on Wikipedia becomes motivation to make allegations. Bad stuff. But anyway, like I said, WP:BLPN is a better place to ask. I'm not going to make too big of a fuss over it, but it's best to keep in mind that sinec that Seigenthaler incident led to the development of a stand-alone WP:BLP policy, it's been taken very seriously and often even trumps other policies and guidelines. Take that for whatever it's worth. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: You're right. I cleaned up my last comment here too FYI. :) I'll leave the other stuff be for now. I guess I needed to get it off my chest, because the urge isn't as strong anymore now that I told one person. Permstrump (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kuffs is so underrated, it didn't even make it onto this top 25 list of the most underrated films of 1992. Now, all I need to do is find a blogger who liked it, and I can cite that to say that it got "universal acclaim", or, my favorite, "critical acclaim from critics". You can tell that it's good because it wasn't critically acclaimed by audiences – no, it was critically acclaimed by critics who were critical while acclaiming it critically. I bet you don't even believe that "critical acclaim by critics" has over 100 hits on Wikipedia. Want to get really depressed? Do a Google News search for it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You participated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Golebiewski (2nd nomination) earlier this year, an AfD that closed as keep. The article is now up for deletion again by the same editor at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Golebiewski (3rd nomination). Your input as to whether or not consensus has changed will be appreciated. Alansohn (talk) 02:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansohn: Thanks for the heads up, by the way. Messy business. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given your opinions expressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nursing articles I guess you might object to an AfD on this list from the same user. It's just as half-baked as the other, lacks any improvement since its creation, and adds nothing to the wiki that the category doesn't already provide in abundance. However, I thought I should at least offer you the courtesy of a heads-up and a chance to improve it. Regards, Bazj (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bazj: Thanks for the heads up. That's a tough one. Medicine is a much bigger subject than nursing, so it would be a substantial project to build it into something reasonably useful (the current list probably encompasses about 1% of medicine-related articles).

But here's the thing. Indices are an explicitly acceptable form of list article. Their use is based on navigational utility, not notability (although the overarching topic would, I presume, have to be notable). What's more, there's a WikiProject about them (Wikipedia:WikiProject Indexes and Portal:Contents/Indices, which is basically an outline of index pages to go along with the overall index of topics -- with a whole lot of red links that have to start somewhere. As incompleteness isn't a reason for deletion, it would be a hard case to make for AfD. That pains me to say, since this one is at such a level of incompleteness that I don't think it's doing anyone any good at this point. But you have to start somewhere, I guess.

There's a discussion from a few years back you might want to check out at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indexes#Why?. They go into some of the justification for the type of page and the WikiProject. I get the impression there are not any strong rules about indices. But there are two things I think are important: First, all such articles should be named accordingly so as not to appear as anything other than a navigational aid. So I moved this one to index of medicine articles. Second, until such an index is very good, it shouldn't be linked to from anywhere other than the Contents page and other internal pages (like the Medicine WikiProject, say). I checked and this one isn't linked to from anywhere. If you want to pursue this one in particular, you might also mention it to the folks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. It's a highly active project and people there might have strong opinions about this (i.e. there may be people willing to develop it and/or object to an inferior index representing an otherwise well-developed project/topic). I don't know. I may add to it if I'm in a particularly non-productive mood, but you can always find more of these articles -- and there won't always be someone available to improve them in a short time frame. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've raised it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Index of medicine articles. We'll see what they make of it. Bazj (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The thing heavy as shit and would duck up your car Publicly e-me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7672:9b00:902:9c8e:4e24:fdc (talk • contribs) 19:03, 21 December 2015‎

I'm afraid I have no idea what any of this means... As it doesn't look like you've made other edits from that IP I'm not sure if this is about an edit you or I have made or something altogether unrelated. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you had a good reason for changing that category name from the one I created, which was intended to harmonize with the English wikipedia article. Doesn't matter a whole lot to me, but just wanted to point out for future reference that there's a specific template for redirecting categories on commons, and that the commons link on the enwiki page should be updated when doing stuff like this. --Junkyardsparkle (talk) 04:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Junkyardsparkle: Thanks for the heads up about the template. It's true I somehow have not seen that. The likely reason, though, is because I do try to go repair all the links. I haven't yet because I only just renamed it about 20 minutes ago or so and I'm still working through some things. :) Will get there. As for the reason, it was just a matter of first looking at Category:Rocky Point Park and noticing it was a different Rocky Point Park without a parenthetical, then seeing the one I was looking for was at "Rocky Point Amusement Park". I looked through the various sources and materials I could find and came to the conclusion that "Rocky Point Park" (if not just "Rocky Point") was what the park was called in the overwhelming majority of sources. For something like this it doesn't seem like it makes sense to have one of the many parks called "Rocky Point Park" be a primary topic, so I created the parenthetical categories. Might as well note that I'm about to upload a few pictures and create another category called "Rocky Point State Park", which is what exists where the amusement park was (and is, as far as I know, the only one by that name). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'm all for disambig-by-default rather than silly conflicts over namespaces, and it wouldn't break my heart to see the enwiki article moved to match your changes, but I don't really get too involved in that kind of stuff. Incidentally, one reason for the redirect template (I think) is because categorization is a huge part of the workload on commons, and I suspect several of the tools that facilitate this make use of the semantic info provided by the template vs. a hardcoded redirect... just so my notice doesn't seem too pedantic. ;) --Junkyardsparkle (talk) 05:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Junkyardsparkle: Thanks. If I considered such things pedantic (or, rather, if I didn't see the value in such pedantry), I'm sure I would've run screaming from Wikipedia years ago :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to wish you a happy new year and hope you had your tongue embedded in your cheek when you talked about obnoxious - I certainly did. From the little I I have seen, you do good work here. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

@Ottawahitech: Well, part of that comment was tongue-in-cheek (or just cheeky), but it was the part you seemed to respond to as though it were a serious part of my argument. So that's a shame :) The "obnoxious" comment was not, as I did not (and still have trouble) reading "RIGHT ON" as anything but sarcasm (which I suppose you're entitled to, under the circumstances). But regardless of whether my comment was in response to something sarcastic or good-natured, it certainly doesn't help or add anything, so I went ahead and struck it.

I do appreciate the message, by the way. Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. With regard to this edit, you might want to read H:DL and MOS:ACCESS, which address the use of semicolons. Basically, when you use a semicolon to bold text without directly following it up with a colon, it generates invalid HTML. This can cause problems for screen readers for the blind, and some web browsers will improperly render the page. If you simply must remove a section header, I suppose you could replace it with boldface text using apostrophes, which is less wrong – at least it will render properly. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: Ah! Did not know that. Changed it. Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've deprodded this article after finding reliable sources. I must not familiar with what sources are considered reliable in the world of punk music, could you improve the article with those references?--RadioFan (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RadioFan: same as any other music, I imagine. It's not one of the genres I spend much time with. The point is, it was easy to find lots of sources through a quick search so shouldn't be deleted. If you are so inclined: feature on MetalHammer, PunkNews interview, several reviews on PunkNews, Allmusic bio, allmusic review, allmusic review, allmusic review, allmusic review, Altpress review, more from alpress under the boysetsfire tag, Drowned In Sound review, Delaware online, Metalinjection review, Billboard bit, New Straits Times review...and this is far from exhaustive. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, those references are better on the article than your talk page.--RadioFan (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RadioFan: But that's not actually the point. You PRODded, saying "No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines", without, it seems, bothering to look for sources yourself (notability being based on the existence of sources and not sources cited, after all). I saw the band name in the list of proposed deletions, thought I recognized the name, and took all of about 2 minutes to search for sources sufficient to see the band is, in fact, notable. Hence deprod. I am not obliged to now rewrite the article, which seems to be your insinuation (and why my tone is a little bit defensive). The article is kind of a stinker, but I don't have time to rework every article I see nominated/proposed for deletion on bogus grounds. If I'm misinterpreting your messages, of course, I apologize. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All that said, I did copy the sources to the talk page: Talk:Boysetsfire. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; we get that kind of edit a lot with "instalment". I wasn't 100% sure myself, but I did check a dictionary before the revert. Magidin (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that this may sound a little trivial, but I have some worries about the non-free content in this article; I've already removed one clearly unwarranted non-free image, but I'm also worried about the following four things:

1. Four separate samples seems somewhat excessive, especially for such a short article.
2. Per WP:SAMPLE, music samples should be no more than 64kbps (which they basically look to be) but they should be no more than 30 secs/10% of the song length, whichever is shorter.
3. Album covers should typically be no more than 300 by 300 px.
4. The two "free" images have some pretty shakey claims. One is claimed to belong to the uploader, which seems unlikely, while the other is claimed to be of unknown provenance, yet questionable claims are made about its publication in the US.

Sorry to be a pain... Crisco 1492 is fairly knowledgeable about this kind of thing; though his focus has been on Indonesia, I believe he has written on Cambodian topics, and may be able to offer some aid when it comes to locating/identifying free content. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Can't say I know much about sources for Cambodian works; the only stuff I've done on Cambodia was in collaboration with Khazar2 (who focused exclusively on human rights topics). I agree that we need less non-free media in that article. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn and Crisco 1492: Thanks for sharing your concerns.

For the images, admittedly I Just looked at what existed in other articles and apparently did not look at the licensing as hard as I should have. So yes File:Rossereysothea.jpg clearly shouldn't have been included. For the album cover, I went ahead and uploaded a smaller version. I'm afraid I don't know anything about the other two. I did look for other images to upload and even emailed a couple researchers to see if they knew of images with compatible licenses or which they would release... no luck so far. That would be Commons rather than fair use, though.

For the samples, yes it looks like I messed up the first one. Must have looked at the wrong track length or something. :/ Regardless, I replaced it with a shorter one. The reason for including the samples is due to so much of the artists' work having being lost, so for some of the tracks this is the one of the only available recordings. The songs are also for four different artists on four quite different tracks. To me, for an album of music with this sort of history, samples from 4 out of 22 tracks doesn't seem excessive to me -- but then, we've established I have some things to learn about non-free media :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Not just the duration, but the number. Four out of twenty-two tracks is quite a bit too much, especially when several of these tracks are given no critical discussion in the article (i.e. falls afoul of our policies) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Crisco 1492: hmm. I was looking at "where only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article." I.e. the article talks about different styles so I tried to pick four tracks to give a range of styles. But perhaps the intended meaning of that line is based on media use in an article about style. Regarding the number, if specific discussion of each song were in the article, would there still be an issue? Is there a rule of thumb for number of samples? Sorry if I'm being daft. To err on the side of caution for now, I removed the three that are not explicitly mentioned in the article and removed the nonfree tag. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's a point of comparison: the FA Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band also uses four sound clips. That one section discussing the songs is three times longer than the entire Cambodian Rocks article. "Contextual significance" can be a very difficult bar to cross, and the chance of a clip's use being questioned increases considerably when more than one clip is used. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough. One it is for now :) I'll see about building out that section to see if we can justify one or two more via specific discussion of the songs, but I've pretty well gone through all the sources I can find... Unfortunately the tracks that get specific mention tend to be those that bear a direct likeness to specific Western songs (Gloria (song), Black Magic Woman, Hip-Hug-Her, etc.). I guess it's to be expected that an American release of untitled tracks from the other side of the world would be treated, at least superficially, like a novelty. :/ (just opining on a tangent now) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: Thanks. I didn't see this come up again. Speaking of which...again?? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rhododendrites, I noticed that in your last edit at Rhinogradentia, you added a list-defined reference named "vbio", but didn't associate it with any inline citations in the text, so it's showing up as an error on the page. Was this meant to be associated with specific content on the page, or is it perhaps meant to be a general reference? —Laoris (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Laoris: Ah. Thanks. I was pulled away from working on it the other day and forgot to go back. Commented out for now. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the article described as "social justice warrior" I believe that it would go just fine under the criticism section of the "social justice" article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowflakemango (talk • contribs) 22:31, 23 January 2016‎

Thanks for clarifying, but I'm confused. Did you post the comment by anonymous user 108.2.58.56 at the deletion discussion? I presume you're responding to my question posed to that person? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you might remember me from talk page of Moral panic and Social Justice and from the ANI where I was put up for hounding. I've now noticed they've placed the term social justice warrior in its own article since it was creating so much chism in social justice.

I looked at the Social Justice Warrior article and it seems like a battleground, full of bully tactics. I don't want to partake and be hounded, but I noticed someone removed four links from Further Reading which weren't duplicates even though that was the edit reason. I don't know any of the other people and I assume they're not monitoring your busy talk page, so could I ask for you, the brazen golem of impartiality, to look into the four links, please? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and at some point someone removed this book reference which probably belongs in Further Reading more as it's a book: ^[1] --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Magoo and McBarker: Could you link to the removals you're talking about? There's been a lot of activity there. On the talk page there are discussions of a couple sources -- are those what you mean? If you're talking about Urban Dictionary, I'm going to completely endorse its removal per WP:ELNO, but other than that I'm not sure. There are some sources that have been repeatedly added, removed, moved, etc. based on the context of their use and disputes over reliability, and I'm not inclined to jump in without the benefit of having followed those discussions. Honestly, I don't relish the opportunity to jump in there at all. The reality of it is I tend to get frustrated by Gamergate-related articles because (even compared to some of the other contentious areas I work in) I feel like both sides of GG disputes operate with a battleground mentality in a total WP:AGF vacuum, which makes it really hard to do anything at all without spending a ton of time to make a little bit of progress.

Regarding the book (I typed the above before I noticed your second message), while it's obviously relevant, it looks like it's self-published. My own take on a book like this is that it may be worth including in further reading if you know it to be high quality, but unless there's a compelling reason to do so and/or unless it has received some legitimacy via, say, a review in the New York Review of Books or something, it probably shouldn't be included in an article about a contentious subject and, realistically, if someone challenges it it should probably be removed from any article. A self-published book might as well be a very long blog until it receives some outside validation. I may have missed something, but that's what I'm seeing based on my 2 minutes of research :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't know about the Urban one: at the bottom here. I also don't really understand this "Gamergate". --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Magoo and McBarker: Ah. Well, there's a ton of gray area here but I'll give you the strict policy rationale. Further reading should still conform to WP:RS and should be general resources to learn more about a subject. The NY Post and Crimson articles are explicitly in the papers' respective "opinion" sections. Opinion pieces are typically only considered reliable for the opinions of their authors. So if an author's opinion is significant, it might be appropriate to add to the article, but it's unlikely to be included as further reading or an external link because it's not a general source of information about the subject -- just about the author's opinions about the subject. The Daily Caller and National Review are treated similarly, as publications for which there is a well-documented political bias. It doesn't mean they can never be used, but especially in contentious political issues (or social issues that have a political bent), they're again just typically reliable for the authors' opinions. The gray area for using them comes down to whether the author's opinions should be included in the article per WP:WEIGHT and a more detailed analysis of the extent to which each is reliable. In short, by the strictest policy definition, they are right to be removed unless compelling reasons for their inclusion can be presented. For more information about Gamergate, see Gamergate controversy, but abandon hope all ye who enter there. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I appreciate your "brazen golem of impartiality", whether or not it was intended as a compliment :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind that I overwrote your link. I'd see the same story, but it's a pet peeve of mine when sites recycle material from original sources for their own clicks; I make an effort to find the original creator of the content and give them the clicks (you'll notice that I failed on my first attempt, then finally tracked down the Youtube account of the news anchor). Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohnoitsjamie: Not at all. Thanks for doing so. I just happened across the story and quickly added it without making sure it originated with that site (I should've known better, since I'd never seen "Hefty" before). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rhododendrites. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Thanks for your input.

I am not Matthew Christopher. I am his social media director. I am in the process of adding sources as I clearly mentioned in my edits.

Matthew Christopher is a notable designer in the same arena as Monique Lhuillier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monique_Lhuillier and I followed her format.

Please advise on the conflict of interest. I understand adding sources.

Thanks muchMatthewchristopher (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthewchristopher: I did see that in this edit you said you were "setting up sources", which I took to mean the social media links you added and the list of where his gowns were featured, which don't sound like they would verify other information beyond the existence of his work in those publications. If I caught you while you were in the middle of adding something else, I apologize. In general, though, there's a higher bar for citing sources when it comes to biographies of living persons and the edits looked promotional. Not egregiously so, to be sure, but they add accomplishments and additional details without including sources and add an array of social media links. And, of course, your username is kind of a red flag. I do recognize there's some irony in reverting your changes partially on the basis of sourcing when the article is littered with "citation needed" sorts of tags, though.

If you would like to learn more about Wikipedia's policies regarding paid editing and conflict of interest: WP:PAIDEDIT is about the part of the terms of use that requires disclosure of paid contributions, WP:COI is the full conflict of interest policy (helpful, but lengthy), and WP:PROMO is about promotion on Wikipedia (part of the "What Wikipedia is not" policy). The most useful for you, however, would be the Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and how to make a simple COI request.

That last link is the most practical for what we're talking about. The idea is that you use the article talk page to propose changes to the article and use a little template, {{Edit request}} which draws the attention of users who might not otherwise see it. Someone else will come in and implement the change, revise the edits and implement, or provide feedback as to any problems that exist in the proposed text. It's an extra step, but does more to ensure what you want to change does change, and changes in a way agreeable with Wikipedia policies.

By the way, I know that Matthew Christopher is a notable designer. When the article was nominated for deletion last year, I worked to keep it because my own research showed that he is notable. That said, I don't have any particular interest in bridal fashion, and while I found some sources for the purpose of keeping the article I never did use them to improve it. If you click that "nominated for deletion" link, you'll find some links there that you could draw from (although, as you're handling his social media, I imagine you have all of those and more). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rhododendrites

I made many updates to this page following your recommendations and advice. Thanks. There is a tag on the wiki page -A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject

This might be based on the picture I uploaded. The picture is Matthew's official head shot. His husband, David J. Marchi is an artist/photographer and takes many of Matthew's business pictures. Here is an example of it's use. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=matthew+christopher+fashion+designerMatthewchristopher (talk) 06:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthewchristopher: I don't think it's because of the image; I think it's strictly because of your username. I don't have any major problems with the content, though, and it looks like Grayfell (an experienced editor) looked it over and made some tweaks, so while I still think it's better to use the talk page (and nobody could justify adding that COI tag in that case) but what you've added looks fine based on a quick look (I haven't actually followed any of the citations). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rhododendrites...

Getting close I think

Would you please help me remove the conflict comment on Matthew Christopher's page?

Appreciate your help here.

Vermontmountainboy (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am having trouble finding out where to respond to Greyfell and his COI comment and the removal of the picture.

I was specifically asked by Wiki to change my username Matthew Christopher. I did this today and it was approved yet I am still getting comments like Greyfell is leaving.

Also, the picture I posted on behalf of Matthew Christopher Inc. is wholly owned by Matthew Christopher Inc. What do I need to provide as proof of this?

Thanks much

(Vermontmountainboy (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

@Vermontmountainboy: It looks like the tag is gone from the article, but there's not a way to remove it from the talk page because, well, you have a COI and you edited the article. I'd recommend leaving a message for Grayfell to follow up on that (and regarding the image). For the latter, you could also check out commons:Help:Contents. Media on Wikipedia fall into three categories: copyrighted content improperly used (should be removed/deleted), copyrighted material used with a fair use rationale, or content with a compatible open license. For the latter, uploads should be done at Wikimedia Commons. There are processes you'll have to go through to show that you're the copyright holder or that you have the copyright holder's permission to release with an open license. I'm not really the best person to help with that, but the Commons page on "email templates" explains how to do this via email. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, honestly, you are one of the best editors I have worked on at wiki and I appreciate the guidance. I will get proper documentation for picture.

The only other thing I want to discuss is the recent edits. I literally looked at the format of one of Matthew's competitors, Monique Lhuillier and her wiki page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monique_Lhuillier

Since her page has been up for quite a long time, I used it a guide and structured the language almost word for word.

Not that I want to call anyone out but all Matthew's content, subjects, statements about his flagship store are no different than how she was written up.

Thanks for looking into this.

(Vermontmountainboy (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

	Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Ryan! -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 04:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rhododendrites. Destruction of ivory, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated  to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 02:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For your tireless work on a range of issues, but more importantly Destruction of ivory, a long overdue article (took a look at Ivory and Ivory trade, and was very much discouraged by the lack of covering this strategy). Keep up the amazing work, Sadads (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadads: Thanks! :) I was surprised by the lack of coverage on Wikipedia, too -- especially given the extensive press attention every one of the events attracts. I hope to go back to Ivory trade at some point to better include it there. BTW have you ever taken a look at the US Fish and Wildlife Service Flickr stream. I was peripherally aware of it before but never really took a look. I grabbed some of their images of the NY ivory crush and wound up grabbing about a hundred others :) Now to categorize.... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, thats great! We always need to be scraping amazing content from PD-US-GOV sources. I worked for the Army Center of Military History for a summer and did a lot of scraping both text and images. Sadads (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, why did you place back an unrelated external link to the article? IQ125 (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@IQ125: Why do you say it's unrelated? There's a section heading in the article about Chesskid.com which explains that it's part of chess.com. Chesskid.com also redirects to chess.com. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, thanks for the clarification. IQ125 (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 07:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So for this edit, did you have to resist the urge to make the edit summary "Added Typo"? Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Howicus: No, but I did think about adding it as Tpyo first. Thanks :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rhododendrites, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! — xaosflux ^Talk 14:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tuesday February 16, 5:30pm: Art+Feminism Training / Photo-Poetics @ Guggenheim
You are invited to join us for an evening of social Wikipedia training and editing at the Guggenheim, with a workshop given by the Art+Feminism project to prepare for next month's major campaign, and a tour and edit-a-thon of Photo-Poetics: An Anthology. Tuesday, February 16 Art+Feminism Training / Photo-Poetics @ Guggenheim (RSVP at Eventbrite - Participants have to bring their own laptops and power cords). 5:30pm - 8:30pm at Sackler Center Media Lab, Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, 1071 Fifth Avenue; enter through 89th Street staff entrance
Wednesday February 17, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. This month, we will also host a Newcomer's Wiki Workshop for those getting started on the encyclopedia project! We will also include a look at our annual plan and budget ideas, and welcome input from community members on the sorts of projects the chapter should support through both volunteer and budgetary efforts. We welcome the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities. After the main meeting, pizza/chicken/vegetables and refreshments and video games in the gallery! Wednesday December 17 WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com). 7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles gallery, 137 West 14th Street We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! (One talk this month will be on use of Wikipedia press passes for photographers.) Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

This Month in GLAM – Volume VI, Issue I, January 2016 Headlines Africa report: #OpenAfrica15 Argentina report: New Editing Challenges and Design the guidelines for cultural institutions Australia and New Zealand report: WiR at State Library of Queensland Belgium report: Heroines Wikipedia workshop addressing the Gender Bias; Public Domain Day Celebration; Wikidata meeting & workshop; FOSDEM: MediaWiki, Wikidata and more France report: New year, new start Germany report: GLAM on Tour at Technische Sammlungen & Verkehrsmuseum Dresden Italy report: BEIC Library Project goes on, and Wikipedia for Press and Media Freedom in Europe Macedonia report: Wikipedia 15 Netherlands report: Wiki loves artists - We need your help; Two Wikipedia edit-a-thons Spain report: GLAMing Madrid, Wiki Loves Folk & Gobernantes de Chile Sweden report: New year, new projects UK report: Audio-describing London Landmarks, celebrating Wikipedia 15 Special story: Pre-production starts for Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons tutorial videos Open Access report: Open Access stats; data citation, dino jaw, dozens of beetles Wikidata report: Wikidata this month Calendar: February's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

On 15 February 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pocket FM, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a portable radio transmitter called Pocket FM (pictured) enables people to create pirate radio networks in areas where authoritative governments tightly control communications? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pocket FM. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot 23 February 2016

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have. Views/Day Quality Title Content Headings Images Links Sources Tagged with… Thailand (talk) Add sources Alexander Alekhine (talk) Add sources Philippines (talk) Add sources Hedonic treadmill (talk) Add sources Ursodeoxycholic acid (talk) Add sources Hunting (talk) Add sources Domestic rabbit (talk) Cleanup Iraq War (talk) Cleanup Race (biology) (talk) Cleanup Social forum (talk) Expand Twitter (talk) Expand Providence Public School District (talk) Expand Video game localization (talk) Unencyclopaedic Kenya (talk) Unencyclopaedic Bangladeshi hip hop (talk) Unencyclopaedic September 11 attacks (talk) Merge Celtic harp (talk) Merge Lingual papilla (talk) Merge Gender role (talk) Wikify Levee (talk) Wikify King of Kings: The Early Years (talk) Wikify Marek Obrtel (talk) Orphan Hykiem Coney (talk) Orphan Antoine Richardson (talk) Orphan Actionspace (talk) Stub Tusk (talk) Stub Mountain buzzard (talk) Stub Long-legged buzzard (talk) Stub Biological specificity (talk) Stub Horror punk (talk) Stub SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping! If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This month:

Development of the extension for setting up WikiProjects, as described in the last issue of this newsletter, is currently underway. No terribly exciting news on this front.

In the meantime, we are working on a prototype for a new service we hope to announce soon. The problem: there are requests scattered all across Wikipedia, including requests for new articles and requests for improvements to existing articles. We Wikipedians are very good at coming up with lists of things to do. But once we write these lists, where do they end up? How can we make them useful for all editors—even those who do not browse the missing articles lists, or the particular WikiProjects that have lists?

Introducing Wikipedia Requests, a new tool to centralize the various lists of requests around Wikipedia. Requests will be tagged by category and WikiProject, making it easier to find requests based on what your interests are. Accompanying this service will be a bot that will let you generate reports from this database on any wiki page, including WikiProjects. This means that once a request is filed centrally, it can syndicated all throughout Wikipedia, and once it is fulfilled, it will be marked as "complete" throughout Wikipedia. The idea for this service came about when I saw that it was easy to put together to-do lists based on database queries, but it was harder to do this for human-generated requests when those requests are scattered throughout the wiki, siloed throughout several pages. This should especially be useful for WikiProjects that have overlapping interests.

The newsletter this month is fairly brief; not a lot of news, just checking in to say that we are hard at work and hope to have more for you soon.

Until next time,

Harej (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VE News 25 February 2016

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter Did you know? Among experienced editors, the visual editor's table editing is one of the most popular features. If you select the top of a column or the end of a row, you can quickly insert and remove columns and rows. Now, you can also rearrange columns and rows. Click "Move before" or "Move after" to swap the column or row with its neighbor. You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor. Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor Team has fixed many bugs. Their workboard is available in Phabricator. Their current priorities are improving support for Japanese, Korean, Arabic, Indic, and Han scripts, and improving the single edit tab interface. Recent changes You can switch from the wikitext editor to the visual editor after you start editing. This function is available to nearly all editors at most wikis except the Wiktionaries and Wikisources. Many local feedback pages for the visual editor have been redirected to mw:VisualEditor/Feedback. You can now re-arrange columns and rows in tables, as well as copying a row, column or any other selection of cells and pasting it in a new location. The formula editor has two options: you can choose "Quick edit" to see and change only the LaTeX code, or "Edit" to use the full tool. The full tool offers immediate preview and an extensive list of symbols. Future changes The single edit tab project will combine the "Edit" and "Edit source" tabs into a single "Edit" tab. This is similar to the system already used on the mobile website. (T102398) Initially, the "Edit" tab will open whichever editing environment you used last time. Your last editing choice will be stored as an account preference for logged-in editors, and as a cookie for logged-out users. Logged-in editors will have these options in the Editing tab of Special:Preferences: Remember my last editor, Always give me the visual editor if possible, Always give me the source editor, and Show me both editor tabs.  (This is the state for people using the visual editor now.) The visual editor uses the same search engine as Special:Search to find links and files. This search will get better at detecting typos and spelling mistakes soon. These improvements to search will appear in the visual editor as well. The visual editor will be offered to all editors at most "Phase 6" Wikipedias during the next few months. The developers would like to know how well the visual editor works in your language. They particularly want to know whether typing in your language feels natural in the visual editor. Please post your comments and the language(s) that you tested at the feedback thread on mediawiki.org. This will affect the following languages: Japanese, Korean, Urdu, Persian, Arabic, Tamil, Marathi, Malayalam, Hindi, Bengali, Assamese, Thai, Aramaic and others. Let's work together Please try out the newest version of the single edit tab on test2.wikipedia.org. You may need to restore the default preferences (at the bottom of test2wiki:Special:Preferences) to see the initial prompt for options. Were you able to find a preference setting that will work for your own editing? Did you see the large preferences dialog box when you started editing an article there? Can you read and type in Korean, Arabic, Japanese, Indic, or Han scripts? Language engineer David Chan needs help from people who often type in these languages. Please see the instructions at mw:VisualEditor/IME Testing#What to test if you can help. Report your results on wiki (Korean – Japanese – all languages). Learn how to improve the "automagical" citoid referencing system in the visual editor, by creating Zotero translators for popular sources in your language! Join the Tech Talk about "Automated citations in Wikipedia: Citoid and the technology behind it" with Sebastian Karcher on 29 February 2016. If you aren't reading this in your favorite language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Thanks! – Whatamidoing (WMF) 17:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was just trying to correct an inaccuracy of the article. If you are not convinced, here it is from the horse's mouth: https://twitter.com/Salon . Here is but one example: "White men must be stopped: The very future of mankind depends on it" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.26.205.212 (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 March 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Syrnet, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that people in Syria are using small, portable radio transmitters to create Syrnet, a network of pirate radio broadcasts committed to oppose the Assad regime? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Syrnet. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday March 5, 10am-5pm: Art+Feminism Edit-a-thon @ MoMA

You are invited to join us for the MoMA Art+Feminism edit-a-thon on Saturday, to support the expansion of Wikipedia's coverage of women in the arts. We encourage both people new to Wikipedia, and people who have experience editing online, or have joined us for past edit-a-thon events. This is by far our biggest event of the year (over 200 participants in the last edition), and every extra hand counts, so please join and volunteer to help us engage new communities! Saturday, March 5 Art+Feminism Edit-a-thon @ MoMA (RSVP at Eventbrite - Participants have to bring their own laptops and power cords). 10:00am - 5:00pm (drop-in anytime!) at The Dorothy and Lewis B. Cullman Education and Research Building at the Museum of Modern Art, 4 West 54 Street - between 5th/6th, New York, NY 10019 Please note that this entrance is one block north of the main 53rd Street entrance, closer to 5th Avenue. And bring your interested friends and colleagues! For those outside of the city, or unable to join on Saturday, check out Art+Feminism regional and global events as well. --Pharos (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

You are mentioned here [3] in the arbitration request noticeboard. Xtremedood (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]