User talk:Geo Swan: Difference between revisions

This user is one of the 800 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

2004, 2005, 2006-01--2006-06, 2006-07--2006-10, 2006-10--2005-12, 2007-01--2007-06, 2007-07--2007-09, 2007-10--2007-12, 2008-01--2008-06, 2008-07--2008-09, 2008-10--2008-12, 2009-01--2009-03, 2009-04--2009-06, 2009-07--2009-09, 2009-10--2009-12, 2010-01, 2010-02, 2010-03, 2010-04, 2010-05, 2010-06, 2010-07, 2010-08, 2010-09, 2010-10, 2010-11, 2010-12, 2011-01, 2011-02, 2011-03, 2011-04, 2011-05, 2011-06, 2011-07, 2011-08, 2011-09, 2011-10, 2011-11, 2011-12, 2012-01, 2012-02, 2012-03, 2012-04, 2012-05, 2012-06, 2012-07, 2012-08, 2012-09, 2012-10, 2012-11, 2012-12, 2013-01, 2013-02, 2013-03, 2013-04, 2013-05, 2013-06, 2013-07, 2013-08, 2013-09, 2013-10, 2013-11, 2013-12, 2014-01, 2014-02, 2014-03, 2014-04, 2014-05, 2014-06, 2014-07, 2014-08, 2014-09, 2014-10, 2014-11, 2014-12, 2015-01, 2015-02, 2015-03, 2015-04, 2015-05, 2015-06, 2015-07, 2015-08, 2015-09, 2015-10, 2015-11, 2015-12, 2016-01, 2016-02, 2016-03, 2016-04, 2016-05, 2016-06, 2016-07, 2016-08, 2016-09, 2016-10, 2016-11, 2016-12, 2017-01, 2017-02, 2017-03, 2017-04, 2017-05, 2017-06, 2017-07, 2017-08, 2017-09, 2017-10, 2017-11, 2017-12, 2018-01, 2018-02, 2018-03, 2018-04, 2018-05, 2018-06, 2018-07, 2018-08, 2018-09, 2018-10, 2018-11, 2018-12, 2019-01, 2019-02, 2019-03, 2019-04, 2019-05, 2019-06, 2019-07, 2019-08, 2019-09, 2019-10, 2019-11, 2019-12, 2020-01, 2020-02, 2020-03, 2020-04, 2020-05, 2020-06, 2020-07, 2020-08, 2020-09, 2020-10, 2020-11, User Talk:Geo Swan/archive/list

Thanks for uploading File:Florin Fodor in Grise Fiord - October 2006.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the text I put in the {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed}} tag

I am surprised by the suggestion this image is replaceable with a free image. (1) Obviously, none of us has a time machine, to go back a dozen years, and capture Mr Fodor's arrival, and release that as a free image. (2) Couldn't an image of a boat like this boat serve as an adequate substitute for this image? Absolutely not. If an RS said Fodor arrived in a specific model of pleasure craft, then a free image of that model of boat would be an adequate substitute. But we don't have that. I can't help thinking that Aspects who applied the tag to challenge this image, didn't really pay attention, when they read the description, and the article. Fodor risked his life in this boat. He traveled something like 2,000 kilometers, in some of the most isolated and dangerous waters on Planet Earth. He had practically run out of fuel, by the time he arrived at his destination. Cuba and Florida are about 140 kilometers apart. The Caribean is warm. Border-jumpers don't have to dodge icebergs. If they fall in, they won't freeze to death in less than half an hour. They can leave and arrive before it gets dark. None of this was true for Fodor's dangerous expedition. Perhaps user Aspect was confused by this much more common and much safer route, and didn't understand how truly dangerous and unprecedented this voyage was? Fodor's attempt to sneak into Canada, from Greenland was unprecedented. No one had ever done it before. No one has done it since. Fodor had a very poor understanding of Canada, of Canada's north. He had no idea how small Grise Fiord is. He had no idea that his arrival would be the very first unscheduled arrival in history. The owner of the local General Store schedules one delivery, by freighter, per year. In 2018, the community gets a couple of visits from very small cruise ships, bearing adventure tourists. But, in 2006, there was nothing like that. Even locals, from other northern communities, fly in. The closest communities are all way to far to make visits by sea. In my opinion, an accurate understanding of his expedition requires the use of this non-free image.

Your recent editing history at Florin Fodor shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Muboshgu, we are all supposed to assume good faith. I am prepared to act on the assumption that our interaction does not represent your best work.
• Okay, are you sure you weren't too hasty in leaving this warning template here?

1. I checked. You escalated to {{Uw-3rr}}, skipping {{Uw-1rr}}.
2. I saw this comment you left at WP:Requests for page protection. I am not a mind-reader. I won't presume I can know, for sure, what you really meant. But, realistically, you do realize this comment looks like I triggered you to get annoyed? Don't the guidelines for administrators recommend only putting on your administrator hat when you have no emotional involvement? Maybe you are super mellow, and you have no emotional involvement, but your comment merely gives the appearance of emotional involvement? Do you think this should have been enough to leave giving me a warning to some other administrator, who hasn't given the appearance of emotional involvement?

   From my perspective you gave me an unexplained refusal, not what I regard as an "answer".

3. Doesn't WP:Edit_warring#Exemptions explicitly list exemptions? Isn't the third exemption: "Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of their ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users"?

   Can I draw your attention to This SPI? 2605:8d80:687:6af4:468a:6d2d:8181:6d4, the IP that accused me of violating 3RR, is a very near neighbour of 2605:8D80:6A4:7C4E:9883:EC1C:31FB:AED0, 2605:8D80:620:DD8F:B26:F0B9:46AD:93C0, 2605:8D80:621:9057:ABBD:2A7:96DC:3706, 2605:8D80:621:BF5D:30A:9331:CF04:A2FE -- other IPs they have used in the past.

   Is there really any doubt that these IP edits were the work of a sockpuppetmaster?

4. Strictly speaking, four edits that span a period of greater than 24 hours, aren't normally considered a lapse from WP:3RR, right? Yes, I understand sometimes a dogged individual is still warned for 3RR, even if their edits don't, strictly speaking, lapse from 3RR. But I encourage you to reconsider this warning. I think if you look more closely, and fairly, it was very clear I was reverting a vandal, someone who was using sockpuppetry to evade our rules.
5. Yes, I know 2605:8d80:687:6af4:468a:6d2d:8181:6d4's edit summary said "3RR violation". But why would you take a claim like this, at face value, when it was from an IP address, probably being used by a sockpuppetmaster? The time-stamps show that I made four reversions, but over the course of 28 hours. Their edit summaries, while giving a surface appearance of normality, include wild distortions. This edit, for instance, was not reverting vandalism, for any reasonable definition of vandalism. The IP contributor(s) kept deleting both the non-free image, AND Image:Orthographic sisimiut, qaanag, grise fiord.png, an image I created myself, so I know, for an absolute fact, it was published under a free license.

   Maybe you are not really familiar how experienced wikihounders operate. Bogus edit summaries, that give the surface appearance of regularity, are their standard operating procedure.

   Their bogus edit summaries chastised me for not discussing my edits, on Talk:Florin Fodor. I think I did explain myself, on the talk page. Did you simply take those edit summaries at face value, without taking a look at Talk:Florin Fodor for yourself?

   Maybe the use of non-free images is not one of the aspects of the wikipedia where you aren't experienced? The sockpuppet's deceptive edit summaries chastise me to including a non-free image -- without first getting consensus for its use. Well, that is not how non-free images are used. We have strict rules as to when non-free images can be used. But not only do those rules not require a prior consensus, this prior consensus is not actually possible, as non-free images that are not currently in use on an article are subject to speedy deletion.

   Rather, when a contributor thinks there is non-free image that measures up to our non-free inclusion criteria, they (1) fill out a non-free rationale, explaining how it meets our criteria; (2) upload the image; and (3) immediately include the image in the article(s) they claimed justified its use. I repeat, our procedure has no place for seeking consensus first.

   Of course we have procedures for those who disagree whether an image measures up to our non-free inclusion criteria to challenge the image. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz challenged the image's use by snipping it from the article. When they snipped it in 2017 they justified the snip by saying it shouldn't be used in the infobox. I've never heard of that restriction, but I satisfied their stated concern by moving it out of the infobox. The second time they snipped the image, they didn't really explain why they removed it. So I asked them to return to the talk page, and offer an explanation. HW did not return, and offer a policy based explanation for their excision, so, seven days later, I restored the image to the article, and said that was what I had done.

   Articles are only supposed to be {{prod}}ed once. I think that, after my call for explanation, on the talk page, subsequent concerns over the image have to escalate, just like how a prod is challenged by a full AFD, I think tagging the image is a next logical step for challengers. Aspects placed that tag, a completely policy compliant choice.

   When an article is being discussed at AFD, we would all recognize that challengers who chose to blank the article, or totally gut the article, instead of just offering their opinion, in the AFD discussion, were committing vandalism. I think if you consult other administrators, experienced with dealing with non-free images, they will back me up, that, when a non-free image has a challenge tag, excising it from the article(s) where it is being used is disruptive. I offered my rebuttal to the challenge tag. I think if you consult other administrators, experienced with dealing with non-free images, they will tell you that, while the challenge tag is in place, additional individuals with challenges to the image's use should offer their further arguments, on the image's talk page, or by placing a different non-free-image-challenge tag, on the image.

   That is why I described the IP's excisions as vandalism.

   Now that another administrator has offered an official opinion on the challenge tag, I think the next step would be WP:REVDEL.

   I am going to repeat I think it was a mistake, on your part, to take the edit summaries of a sockpuppetmaster at face value.

6. Doesn't the warning template you placed explicitly suggest "In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection." I tried requesting semi-protection, and the administrator who reviewed my request, uh you, turned down my request, without, it seems to me, any meaningful explanation.

   I am not experienced at page protection. I think this was my very first request. In my opinion, every question, every disagreement, is a teachable moment.

   You might think it was obvious why you turned down my request? nothing is obvious.

   In my opinion, we should be able to rely on our administrators to set a good example to less experienced contributors. In my opinion setting a good example implies taking reasonable steps to make sure their acts and comments are understood.

   My first experience with an article being locked from editing was also the first time an administrator threatened to place a block on me. I made a good faith addition to an article, one that I thought was neutrally written, and properly referenced, only to have it promptly excised, with a missing or inadequate edit summary. I genuinely thought that excision was vandalism, and restored my addition, saying "revert unexplained excision". The other party reverted me, and locked the article so only administrators could edit it. They kept it locked, and refused to explain what they were doing, until they had put in place their preferred version. They then threatened to block me. What exactly would I have to do, to trigger that block? Unclear. I couldn't get them to answer that question. They didn't offer any kind of explanation, on the article's talk page, while it was locked. And the post lock explanation was pretty weak. It turned out they weren't very good at web searches. They thought the only references that backed up what I contributed were from Alex Jones Infowar site, or one of its clandestine mirrors. But they failed to find several legitimate RS completely unrelated Infowar. I had this threat of a block hanging over me, without knowing, specifically, what was going to trigger it, with the administrator's justification for the block deeply flawed. (This was about 10 years ago, and I had never heard of infowars.)

   Administrators really have to be both careful and respectful when they issue warnings. In my opinion, it is a huge mistake when the warning is based on a misconception. In my opinion, it is a huge mistake when the warning is not clear as to what the administrator thinks should trigger it.

7. You removed updates about the excisions of the image from the article, that I left on File:Florin_Fodor_in_Grise_Fiord_-_October_2006.jpg, with the edit summary "this is also inappropriate behavior". Okay, as above, I am going to assume you aren't really familiar with how we deal with non-free images.

   This is not the first image I have uploaded where someone has inappropriately excised the image from the relevant articles. Another image I considered valuable was excised when someone excised the image from the article shortly before the challenge tag expired. Based on that experience I decided it was critical to inform the administrator dealing with the challenge tag that parties had excising it from the article. I don't want to see non-free images that would have successfully passed their challenges being deleted because someone made sure they didn't satisfy the criteria of being in use in an appropriate article, right before the decision was made. So, no, I think your comment that my updates were inappropriate is incorrect.

8. Just to be clear -- this warning you left for me here -- you were threatening to block me, if I made further edits to Florin Fodor, correct?

   As above, I think it would be a mistake for you to issue me any administrator warnings, after your apparently emotional comment.

   But, when an administrator issues warnings that they will consider blocking an individual, don't you think it would be better if those warnings were more specific than the one you seem to have issued?

   You realize that the sockpuppet also repeatedly excised Image:Orthographic sisimiut, qaanag, grise fiord.png with no legitimate justification, whatsoever? If your threat of a block was legitimate, would it have applied to restoration of this map, that I made personally, specifically for this article, and which I know has no copyright issues?

   Now that another administrator has officially declined the challenge tag, if the next step for a challenger is REVDEL, would your threat to block me, if I restored the image, still stand?

AGF. I am happy to act on the assumption that your response(s) to my requests for semi-protection, and other comments and edits, in response to my comments and edits, do not represent your best work.

Years ago I wrote a user essay on apologies. That is still my position. People hate feeling forced to apologize so much I would rather forgo being apologized to. I do, however, strongly appreciate some kind of acknowledgement that the other party recognizes they erred -- necessary, in my opinion, to re-establish trust.

I do my best to own up when I recognize I was in error. I do so even when it is unpleasant. I think I do an OK job acknowledging when I recognize my mistakes. And I would like to think I could expect the same from my wikipedia collaborators. Geo Swan (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I will be very disappointed if your response is a TLDR, or any variation there-of. Geo Swan (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rahaf Zina is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahaf Zina until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Hamidullah Khan -- a youth held in Bagram.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abdullah Yahia Yousf Al Shabli is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Yahia Yousf Al Shabli until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Habib Ullah, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It is an "attack page", and appears to be primarily intended to disparage or threaten its subject. This includes biographies of living people that are unsourced and entirely negative in tone. (See section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks; attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleted by RHaworth, about an hour after it was tagged. As I noted on User_talk:RHaworth#Your assistance please..., I don't particularly remember this article, when I started it, or when I last worked on it. I requested a copy of my last revision be sent, by email. Geo Swan (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Some?) of the history of Habib Ullah has been restored. It shows my last edit was to turn Habib Ullah into a redirect, in 2007. It looks like there are some deleted edits, where, presumably, somebody may have then turned the redirect into an attack page. I asked the tagger to consider whether they should not have left the heads-up on the contributor who turned the redirect into an attack page. Geo Swan (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hikmat Nafi Shaukat is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hikmat Nafi Shaukat until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Kalafani youtube recruiting video.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I've been combing through stale drafts recently, and happened upon one of yours: User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/not ready yet/Bacha Khan (Guantanamo captive 529). Unless you have some reason you would like to keep it, would you be willing to either blank it or request it be speedily deleted by adding {{db-u1}}? Thanks! —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I've been combing through stale drafts recently, and happened across one of yours: User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Brook DeWalt. As you do not appear to be currently using it, I was wondering if you'd be willing to either blank it or request its deletion by tagging it with {{db-u1}}. Thanks! —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gina Haspel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that someone editing anonymously is not a reason to revert their edits. Please ensure you assume good faith. Continuing to revert edits based on this can be grounds for blocking as it is against the rules and spirit of Wikipedia. It may be prudent to read about our community prior to continuing to edit as competency is required. You can also visit the tea house if you have further questions. 2605:8D80:686:AFAA:AB44:F871:7412:80AF (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record 2605:8D80:686:AFAA:AB44:F871:7412:80AF resorts to using anonymous IP addresses to evade their well deserved indefinite block.
• Yes, I did make a series of reversions of another anonymous IP -- who was continuing to make horrible racist edits, in spite of a series of warnings.
• This edit reverted the SPA's substitution of "execution" with POV "torture-murder". It reverted the frankly racist passage "...The details confirmed the opinions of many that the Indians were irreparably savage..."
• In this edit I reverted the SPA's indefensible insertion of "savage" prior to Shawnee. This was both racist and unrefenced.
• In this edit I reverted "...pointed up the baleful effect of warlike, caste-ridden Prussia on the German character..." also racist and unreferenced. Geo Swan (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Yes, World Lamest Critic has been (or was) following me around for sometime, obsessed with me, doing everything they could to get rid of articles I'd created. This person was seriously obsessed, it was unreal. No administrator did anything about it though. My nickname for them was World's Lamest Sockpuppet. I also got a message once from Wikipedia that someone was trying to access my account but failed to use the correct password several times, someone was trying to hack my account on Wikipedia. If I can go back and find out what their original account was I will let you know. Neptune's Trident (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

• Thanks. WLC left a faux "friendly reminder" on the commons. Geo Swan (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for letting me know about this and the "friendly reminder". By the way, I'm not J.C. Maçek as some editor on here seems to believe. Neptune's Trident (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• P.S. It says who this user is right on their talk page: Govindaharihari

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:World%27s_Lamest_Critic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Govindaharihari

Just letting you know. Neptune's Trident (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)o[reply]

• Wow! That WLC! Here he has the nerve to pretend he didn't write "I don't mean this in an insulting way, but do A you happen to have a spectrum disorder? It may explain some of our communication difficulties."
• What does the first sentence of spectrum disorder say? It says it is a "mental disorder".
• What does the first sentence of mental disorder say? It says "A mental disorder, also called a mental illness or psychiatric disorder, is a behavioral or mental pattern that causes significant distress or impairment of personal functioning."

• The wikipedia's civility rules and conventions tell us to try to confine discussions to editorial issues, and refrain from insulting comments. At Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#NPA question [1] WLC was explicitly told his comments seemed insulting. WLC even has the nerve to claim that, somehow, I am the one who is insulting other people, by describing spectrum disorder as a mental illness.

• My general policy on how to respond to rudeness and persone seral attacks is to do my best to take the high road, and not "respond in kind". I figure the project is best served when at least one party to a disagreement remains civil. Occasionally difficult people will return to civility when one is consistently civil. I did my best to not respond in kind to WLC's abuse, and I think I did an okay job.

• But does WP:AGF only apply to other wikipedia contributors? Now that they have been indefinitely blocked do I have any remaining obligation to try to AGF about WLC? Geo Swan (talk) 23:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Holy moly! Well, I'd say a certain editor (and I don't mean you, Geo Swan) is really going off the deep end, only in my opinion. He (or she, they) really is obsessed. Crazy. Neptune's Trident (talk) 03:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• P.S. Note to Geo Swan and other third parties World's Lamest Critic has also been Wikistalking me as well for some time, following me around Wikipedia and messaging me and accusing me of being someone who I am not. Not sure if there's anything that can be done about this but I just wanted to make it known. Neptune's Trident (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• P.S.S. Note to Geo Swan and other third parties, World's Lamest Critic left me another rather ominous "you've been naughty again..." message here. Neptune's Trident (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I use Twinkle (an automated service) to initiate AFD discussions, which is supposed to automatically notify the relevant parties. So no, there was no wrongdoing or oversight on my part — if you failed to get a notification, then Twinkle had a technical hiccup of some kind that I have no control over or responsibility to answer for. But it's precisely because such things can happen that you also have the personal responsibility to watchlist your own work so that you're not depending solely on external notifications to be aware of such things.

It's certainly possible that Rachel Giese would be notable enough for a Wikipedia article if it had been referenced properly — but it's unconditionally true that the sources you used to support the article were not ones that got her over WP:GNG. A person does not qualify for a Wikipedia article by sourcing it to her own staff profiles on the websites of her own employers, or to pieces of her own writing about other things, or to Q&A interviews in which she's the speaker and not the subject, or to her own book's publication details on Google Books — a person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of reliable source coverage in media, and thye only source you added which met that standard was covering her in the context of buying a house with her wife, not in the context of anything relevant to her notability as a journalist.

The question of whether she clears a notability standard or not is not about what the article says she did — it's about how well you can or can't reference what it says she did, and you didn't reference it the correct way to make it includable. So, yeah, I'd say you have a bit of a blind spot about what it takes to demonstrate that a person is notable enough for a Wikipedia article — because none of the references you used to support that version were notability-supporting ones at all.

Regardless, the page will be at User:Geo Swan/Rachel Giese for you momentarily. Bearcat (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the userification.

WRT watchlists, the WMF is a cash-rich non-profit. They employ a team of software developers, who, sadly, release pointless, terrible "wizards", rather than improvements that would really help improve the project. I am one of the most prolific contributors, and I outgrew watchlists a decade ago. I had edited so many articles that going through my watchlist, once a day, would take more time than I had allocated for a whole day's contributions. The WMF developers should have provided us with multiple watchlists, and improved ways of looking at our watchlists. On my wishlist would be a way to be shown articles from my watchlist, when they were edited by someone else -- but only if my last edit was also recent, ie yesterday, or the last week, or the last month.

WRT your comments on notability and blindspots -- sorry I have a committee meeting tonight, so I can't reply to those comments satisfactorily now. I will reply soon. Geo Swan (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

The Walrus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Ron Graham and Michael Adams

Angela Asher (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John Doyle

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not bother to look at the article before disambiguating? The Continental Congressman and the Mayor of New York are the same person! bd2412 T 16:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are they BD2412? It is important for all of us, you and I and everyone else, to remember we are subject to normal human fallibility. The project works best if we remember the good faith mistakes of others are forgiveable. I consider your good faith mistakes forgiveable. I encourage you to accept that the good faith mistakes of other people are forgiveable. Geo Swan (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly stated in the first line of the article. I'll be the first to forgive good faith mistakes, but more care should be taken when making the highly disruptive step of unilaterally and without discussion moving a heavily linked page. Going forward, you should probably just use WP:RM to propose such moves. If there had been a discussion, someone would have caught this before it became an issue. bd2412 T 20:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• BD2412 just to be clear, are you saying you don't believe my mistake was made in good faith?

You used the phrase "going forward". I started going forward, and disambiguating references to James Duane, to point to James Duane (Continental Congress). It looks like it didn't occur to you to tell me you moved the article back to James Duane. So, the following good faith edits of mine were a waste of time: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13].

The wikipedia relies on a volunteer workforce. Even if we feel angry at another contributor I suggest it is best to communicate clearly with them. Nothing is improved by withholding information from them, so they waste their time, even if, for the sake of argument, we think they wasted our time.

I have an essay on apologies. Please read it if you think I should feel obliged to apologize. Geo Swan (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that your edits were made in good faith, but the move indicates an insufficient investigation of the subject matter on which it was premised. I was not aware that you were fixing links to the page, and cannot possibly inform every editor who might be doing so, given the breadth of the disambiguation community. However, this is precisely the reason why editors moving pages with substantial numbers of incoming links need to be sure that they are on the right track in so doing. Any editor can revert an undiscussed move, without notice to anyone else. Consider WP:Chesterton's fence. My time was wasted too, here. I started fixing these links, and it very quickly occurred to me that it would be very unusual for Wikipedia to be missing an article on a New York City Mayor. It only took a short time to research the question, but that was still time that I had to spend on it. I don't expect an apology. I expect that you will, in the future, apply that kind of forward thinking to these kinds of situations. bd2412 T 23:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a postscript, I think that you are overall a very good editor, and don't mean to detract from that opinion here. bd2412 T 23:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor moved your article to draft space. You can find it at Draft:Unnamed fireboat, North Kingstown, RI I think the fireboat is named "Marine 5". Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand why you wanted it moved from draft space to user space. You complain of a wikistalker, but I don't see evidence of a wikistalker. Maybe a vandal, but the usual way to deal with vandals is to revert and protect. I still don't understand. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tried my best to get all the references and follow all the guidelines of wikipedia but I am being targeted from different sources. and as a beginner I am unable to save my article.Requesting to kindly save my first article and so that I will have trust that beginner can also contribute in wikipedia.

Am2623 (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Commented at Talk:Spandana Palli. Geo Swan (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added an infobox to Te Kukupa, but I left most of the lines blank because I didn't have the information. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 01:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to delete this as a BLP violation. The closest these sources come to calling him an "Al-Qaida associate" is in that Fox article, which is sensationalist and reports only hearsay--and that is the source for your suggestion of continued importance, with "some commentators and legislators continued to call for his case to be further investigated", citing a few ex-FBI agents with a chip on their shoulder. The NY Daily News doesn't help you much either. So, case closed, suspect not guilty, no notability, and "routinely characterizes [sic] as an 'al Qaeda associate'" is simply not true. Drmies (talk) 22:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I have read the draft, and do not consider it a BLP violation. I think he is essentially a public figure. The actual crimes of which he was convicted are minor, but nottheir obvious implications. He is discussed in two books, one of which, written by a NYT reporter with an article on WP, received a significant mainstream prize, , and the other from a less reliable Fox reporter, but published by a well known reliable mainstream publisher. The draft is sourced from articles in mainstream major newspapers--Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, & others. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree and urge you to look at which parts were sourced to the Fox article, for instance. And "discussed" in those books--they are mere mentions. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...a comment that implied bad faith, on my part

There's a reason for that. Hint: your track record.

A reminder -- as you surely need one -- that the guideline is "assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary". Perhaps you should pay more attention to all the warnings YOU'VE received over the years. --Calton | Talk 01:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Calton's comment, above, seems to be in response to this comment I left at Talk:St. Catherine University#explanation.
• When I find myself interacting with individuals who I find confrontational, I do my best to keep my cool, and give mild answers, that show respect for AGF, for various reasons, I have explained many times. I think I did an okay job here.
• In my most recent comment in that thread I directed their attention to User:Geo Swan/opinions/Pick one, an essay that suggests that individuals who are reckless about other people's feelings, undermine their credibility when they claim their feelings are being hurt. Geo Swan (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited HMPNGS Seeadler (P03), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vietnamese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done

Hi, I've just blocked that IP editor who was reverting your changes. Please let me know if they turn up again. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! Will do. Geo Swan (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:South African environmental patrol vessel Ruth First.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This NFCC image was replaced by a free image. Geo Swan (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge)

Hello Geo Swan, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules

• New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
• Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
• Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.

Editathons

• Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

The Signpost

• The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Geo! A comment about your article Fireboats of San Diego: the section heading “Port of San Diego” is misleading. The Port of San Diego is a quasi-governmental agency established in 1962 to serve all of San Diego Bay. The history that you are quoting there predates the creation of the Port and appears to be about the City of San Diego’s firefighting, not the Port’s. In fact the history you are quoting is from the city’s Fire-Rescue Department history page. --MelanieN (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

You are receiving this message because your username or portal was listed as a participant of a WikiProject that is related to Africa, the Carribean, Cinema or theatre.

This is to introduce you to a new Wikiproject called AfroCine. This new project is dedicated to improving the Wikipedia coverage of the history, works, people, places, events, etc, that are associated with the cinema, theatre and arts of Africa, African countries, the carribbean, and the diaspora. If you would love to be part of this or you're already contributing in this area, kindly list your name as a participant on the project page here.

Furthermore, In the months of October and November, the WikiProject is organizing a global on-wiki contest and edit-a-thon tagged: The Months of African Cinema. If you would love to join us for this exciting event, also list your username as a participant for this event here. In preparation for the contest, please do suggest relevant articles that need to be created or expanded in different countries, during this event!

If you have any questions, complaints, suggestions, etc., please reach out to me personally on my talkpage! Cheers!--Jamie Tubers (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Grand River (Ontario) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Kitchener and New Hamburg

Nith River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to New Hamburg

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Geo Swan. 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.Lolifan (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You created the an article at the title Humud Dakhil Humud Sa'id Al-((Jad'an in May 2006, moving it to Humud Dakhil Humud Sa'id Al Jad'an 1 minute later. The article was redirected to List of Saudi detainees at Guantanamo Bay in 2011. Do you think the original title still (with the "((") has value? If not you may want to tag it for G7 speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your interest.

I think you are suggesting that this is an implausible redirect...

On April 20th, and May 15th, 2006, the DoD published its first two official lists of captives held in Guantanamo. Prior to the publication of these lists the DoD refused to identify the men and boys.

The first list was of the 668 men and boys who had had a Combatant Status Review Tribunal convened to review whether they were an "enemy combatant". The second list was supposed to be a comprehensive list of everyone held in Guantanamo.

Almost 100 individuals had their names spelled inconsistently on the two lists. Wow. How did that happen.

This man was one of over a dozen men who had parentheses in the DoD's official version of his name.

So, I disagree it was, it is, an implausible redirect.

Thousands of newspapers republished those official lists. Anyone looking at old references from 2006 could come across the old, apparently implausible names, and want to know who it really refered to.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough - it is a plausible redirect then (contrary to my first thought). I'll copy this to the article talk page to enlighten anyone else who stumbles across it. Thryduulf (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you got this message before... The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada will soon be reaching its second-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and no unsourced claims.

You may submit articles using this link for convenience. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited George McCullagh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Fulford (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which has been dedicated to improving contents that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.

This is a global online edit-a-thon, which is happening in at least 5 language editions of Wikipedia, including the English Wikipedia! Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section, if you haven't done so already.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing Users who are able to achieve the following:

• Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
• Country Winners
• Diversity winner
• High quality contributors
• Gender-gap fillers
• Page improvers
• Wikidata Translators

For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:50, 03 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Geo Swan:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – —usernamekiran(talk) 12:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sergeant Lacey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joseph Margulies (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dawa wa Irshad is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawa wa Irshad until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sheldybett (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I recommended redirection, and the article was, eventually, redirected. Geo Swan (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Geo Swan, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018^[update], there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal

• There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
• Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!

Project updates

• ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
• There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.

New scripts

• User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js^(info) — A new script created for quickly placing {{copyvio-revdel}} on a page.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Edwin Whitefield, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jamestown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As has been explained to you before, GNG is not simply a case of counting up the number of media hits that exist and then extending a free notability pass to everybody who happens to surpass an arbitrary number: GNG has tests for the kind of coverage that does or doesn't exist, the geographic range of coverage that does or doesn't exist, the depth of coverage that does or doesn't exist, and the context of what the person is getting coverage for.

Of the 12 links you provided, many of them still represent local coverage, so they don't necessarily prove that I was wrong to assess his notability as "local to a single city". So let's go over why most of them still don't wash as establishing that Cole warrants a presence in an international encyclopedia:

1. Global News, "Desmond Cole on his experiences with racial discrimination in Toronto" - This is from Global Toronto, not from the national network, and a person's notability cannot be established by interview sourcing in which they're speaking about themselves — it can only be demonstrated by sources in which the person is being spoken or written about, in the third person, by people other than themselves.
2. Yahoo - Your link does not take me to any source about Desmond Cole, but to the front splash page of today's Yahoo News headlines, such as "Obama delivers sharpest takedown of Trump" and "Saudi Arabia again changes its story on Khashoggi killing". And at any rate, Yahoo is a news aggregator, not a media outlet in its own right, so it's not an establisher of notability under GNG.
3. Your Morning - This is a short blurb, not substantive coverage for the purposes of counting as a GNG point, and it's a blurb again wrapping a video in which he's talking about himself rather than being spoken or written about in the third person.
4. Hamilton Spectator - The fact that a Torstar-owned paper, in a city only a short distance away from Toronto and still partially within Toronto's local media market, reaggregated a piece written by a Toronto Star journalist and first published by the Toronto Star does not constitute proof that his coverage is nationalizing. And since the whole basis of the coverage precisely hinges on Desmond Cole's association with the Toronto Star, the Torstar family of publications are not independent coverage for the purposes of establishing notability in that context.
5. The Globe and Mail, "Toronto Mayor John Tory to introduce motion to end carding in the city" - This source is not about Desmond Cole for the purposes of helping to establish his notability, it just briefly namechecks his existence at the very end of an article about something else.
6. CTV Toronto, "My responsibility is community safety" - Local source, in which the only mention of Desmond Cole anywhere in the entire page is in the headline of a different story in the "other headlines" sidebar; the actual text of the article itself is not only not about him, it doesn't even mention him at all.
7. CTV Toronto, "Activist interrupts police board meeting, demanding carding data destroyed" - This one's actually about him, granted, but it's local coverage, thus failing to demonstrate that I was wrong in my assessment of his notability as being localized.
8. Huffington Post - WP:BLOGS are not reliable sources. Huffington Post can be used as a convenience link when it's reaggregating wire service coverage originating with Canadian Press or Associated Press or something of that ilk — but it's the fact that the coverage originated with CP or AP that it's reliable, not the fact that it's on HuffPo. When the content originates with one of the HuffPo's own staff bloggers, however, that is not evidence of notability at all.
9. Global News, "New carding rules approved by Toronto police board, historic data will still be retained" - Not about Desmond Cole, but just glancingly namechecks his existence in coverage about something else.
10. The Globe and Mail, "Desmond Cole’s feature on carding lit a fuse under the city’s elite, but why did it take so long?" — The first source in the entire list that actually starts to count for something.
11. National Post - Not about Desmond Cole, but just glancingly namechecks his existence a single time in coverage about something else.
12. Maclean's — Again, more substantive than most of the others.

So the only two sources that are doing anything at all in terms of establishing that he's notable enough for a Wikipedia article are Maclean's and the second G&M hit. But if the context of what they're covering him for doesn't pass any subject-specific inclusion criteria, then two good media hits are not enough coverage to get him over the "notable just because media coverage exists" bar — and none of the other hits are getting him over any bar at all, because they all fail one or more of the depth, range, context or independence tests. Again, GNG is not just an arbitrary number of text matches on the person's name — it tests for the type, depth, range and context of coverage that does or doesn't exist, not just the number of possible footnotes. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This seems to be a reply to this comment of 2018-10-22. In that comment I listed twelve urls, and Bearcat's numbered points refer, in turn to them. Urls follow... Geo Swan (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. https://globalnews.ca/video/1955406/desmond-cole-on-his-experiences-with-racial-discrimination-in-toronto
2. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/qa-desmond-cole-wonders-exactly-celebrating-canada-year-123309593.html archived 2017-06-06
3. https://www.ctv.ca/YourMorning/Articles/May-2017/Why-Desmond-Cole-quit-writing-for-The-Star-to-be-a
4. https://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/7312699-it-was-wrong-to-rein-in-desmond-cole-paradkar/
5. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/mayor-tory-to-seek-end-of-police-carding/article24835593/
6. https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/my-responsibility-is-community-safety-toronto-s-police-chief-on-carding-1.2412905
7. https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/activist-interrupts-police-board-meeting-demanding-carding-data-destroyed-1.3377760
8. https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/mike-sholars/desmond-cole-activist-toronto-star_b_16413690.html
9. https://globalnews.ca/news/3073439/new-carding-rules-approved-by-toronto-police-services-board-will-retain-old-data/
10. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/50-reasons-to-love-toronto-and-a-few-to-loathe-it/article24915852/
11. https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/police-across-canada-under-growing-pressure-to-stop-carding-people
12. https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-benevolent-liberal-racism-behind-desmond-coles-star-exit/

I don't think you will get anywhere convincing people to stop formatting citations in their preferred methods, I suggest you try out the enhanced diff engine at User:Cacycle/wikEdDiff and see if that helps. Personally I find the diffs it gives are much clearer. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Seaport of the Prairies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hudson Bay Railway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Silver Maple Leaf Award
		This maple leaf is awarded to Geo Swan for creating 86 new articles, including coverage of Canadian transportation, watercourses and communities, during the second year of The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have already been told by multiple editors to stop pushing your reference agenda. Please stop as it is you who are acting outside policy and pushing your own opinion. Thank you. 184.68.12.182 (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This warning is from a perennial wikistalker, who is evading a well-deserved indefinite block. It is, IMO, nonsense... Geo Swan (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Portland Loo, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Portlandia and Portland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Geo Swan (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Neonatal teeth, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mirabeau and Mazarin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Geo Swan (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Geo Swan,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW

• Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.

If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.

We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.

With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Geo Swan. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Ali Musa DaqDuq's forged ID documents.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Ali Musa DaqDuq's forged ID documents.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Canadian Beavers. Since you had some involvement with the Canadian Beavers redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please move Geo Swan/Vanessa Mulroney to User:Geo Swan/Vanessa Mulroney. We don't need mainspace articles named for you! 76.127.20.109 (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Big Creek (Lake Erie), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Long Point (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Geo Swan,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top 100 reviewers.

Less good news, and an appeal for some help

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.

Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.

Training video

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you misunderstand how BLP works here. The onus is on YOU to defend the inclusion of material that is properly sourced. It is not up to the community to defend the exclusion of material. You have a serious misunderstanding of how BLP works so please refrain from editing in this area. Unsourced or poorly sourced BLP articles could present a legal issue for the wiki. 2605:8D80:522:3240:223B:6F67:22C7:443C (talk) 16:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow this wikistalker is annoying. They have been harassing me for two years.

They don't have a good understanding of the wikipedia's policies, but they have mastered the vandal trick of crafting comments and edit summaries that give the surface appearance of reasonableness, when not examined in detail, but which are complete bullshit.

I addressed their most recent vandalism at the most recent SPI I initiated... Geo Swan (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mathew L. Golsteyn is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathew L. Golsteyn until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Nick-D (talk) 03:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Result was no-consensus... Geo Swan (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Mathew L. Golsteyn requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://video.foxnews.com/v/5979740536001/?playlist_id=930909819001#sp=show-clips. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Nat Gertler (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is my recollection that I blanked that talk page, or trimmed that material, shortly after a concern was raised. That's my tacit acknowledgement I recognized tunnel vision led me to a lapse from policy. Geo Swan (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did an official request for comment for Miss Waterhouse because I have been going back and forth about this for years now. I see you’re in agreement with me that the Doodlebob Wolf guy’s goal post moving is gettting ridiculous as if he owns the page or has a vendetta against her for dating a famous actor. Anyway, I invite you to join so we can all discuss this once and for all. I’m prepared to come with more sources too.Trillfendi (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dedicated to improving articles about people who are not blokes. Victuallers (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Slaight Family Music Lab, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Birdland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. we did not use 30em any more

2. Either you move all ref to |refs=, or vice versa. You put a single ref to |refs=. Matthew hk (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And here is the real guide: Wikipedia:References dos and don'ts and real policy Wikipedia:Citing sources. Please point out the consensus to use only one ref in |refs=, as well as it can be concise if deleting the line breaker Matthew hk (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

matthew_hk and I both left notes on one another's talk pages at the same time. He subsequently cut and paste the comment I left on his talk page here. My talk page, my rules. I am merely going to link to my comment, and trim their cutting and pasting.t

• With regard to "30em"... did I place that? No.

With regard to your link to Wikipedia:References dos and don'ts... You didn't say why you linked to it. The fourth point under the "Do" section reads Use a consistent reference style within each article. So, what does Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_style say?

While citations should aim to provide the information listed above, Wikipedia does not have a single house style, though citations within any given article should follow a consistent style. A number of citation styles exist including those described in the Wikipedia articles for Citation, APA style, ASA style, MLA style, The Chicago Manual of Style, Author-date referencing, the Vancouver system and Bluebook.

As per my comment on your talk page, "A number of citation styles exist..."

I am sorry, but I am concerned you didn't show the basic collegiality of reading my comment.

As I explained in my comment, using {{cite}} templates inline, and placing them in the reference section are merely two different ways of using the {{cite}} template style of referencing.

I suggest you take a closer look at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Variation in citation methods. Look particularly at the caution it urges to mess around with stuff that works, for merely esthetic reasons.

• With regard to your link to Wikipedia:Citing sources, you didn't specify which passages from that wikidocument you thought were relevant here.

• Yes, these documents should be rewritten so they don't confuse people, like you, who don't know that other citation styles beyond the {{cite}} style exist. I continue to think that the advice I left on your talk page was very good advice. I continue to think that you had an honest good faith misunderstanding. I continue to think you honestly thought you should rewrite perfectly adequate references, for esthetic reasons...

...but you shouldn't. So, please stop, OK? Geo Swan (talk) 03:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• What a difference a couple of years make! I checked Matthew's contribution history, and he started contributing in 2006, about two years after I started to contribute here. In 2004 no articles used any kind of citation style. In 2005 early more awkward citation styles took an early lead. But by 2006 the generally superior {{cite}} style had larger supplanted those earlier styles to such an extent that, even though Matthew has made almost as many edits as I have, he seems to have never become aware of those earlier styles. Geo Swan (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used the thank button on the revision control page for Marriott International after Matthew made this correction. We are all fallible, and we will all make mistakes. There should be no shaming of others when they make a good faith mistake.

    I am leaving a note about this edit as I see it reinforcing my position. The correction in this edit will be highlighted by the revision control system. However, if Matthew had both moved the location of the reference, and made the correction, at the same time, it would obfuscate the fact that a fix was made to the reference.

    How could this be a problem? Someone -- possibly me -- might decide that the reference and some or all of the new material I added, also belonged in a different article. I might edit the version I left, to cut and paste material into that other article, doing so without realizing the reference contained an errant line feed. The result would be pasting in the version of the reference prior to the correction.

    I think this is an argument for not fixing things that aren't broken, and not unnecessarily moving references that work fine where they are. Geo Swan (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Matthew hk (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Matthew hk claimed he tried to discuss our disagreement, prior to escalating to dispute resolution. What the record shows is that he cut my comment from his talk page one minute after I left it -- not anywhere close to the time it should have taken him to read it. He never actually responded to a single point I made in that comment. So, I am afraid it seems to me that the claim he tried to discuss our disagreement, prior to escalating to dispute resolution, was just not true. Geo Swan (talk) 03:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited César Chávez Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cap Radio (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Here’s an example of Quadriga’s bookkeeping. These are apparently bank drafts.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Benjamin A. Bottoms, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marietta High School (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ulitzer is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulitzer until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mccapra (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abu Nasir (Srinagar commander) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abu Nasir (Srinagar commander) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ∯WBG^converse 12:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ralph A. Dengler has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I replied to your Symbiogenesis edit. I don't know how Wikipedia etiquette works so I'm sorry if I'm breaking all the conventions.Shumpeim (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Shumpeim, I think the learning curve is a lot steeper now than it used to be, when I started. Please, don't worry about it.

I mean to ask the guy who uploaded the first image whether their image was redrawn, from scratch, using the information from an image in the Campbell book. It has a funny filename, ending in .svg.pgn.

The image may not be properly licensed. Geo Swan (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Geo Swan,

News

• The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.

Discussions of interest

• Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
• {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
• A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
• There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.

Reminders

• NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.

NPP Tools Report

• Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
• copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
• The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Translation values:

• “It’s a tribute to the agility and perseverance of translator Will Firth that Krleža’s incendiary prose strikes home with such fluent power.”- Jonathan Bousfield reviewing Miroslav Krleža’s Journey to Russia on Stray Satellite, 2018
• “A special place must also be accorded to Will Firth, who has translated the Bosnian original into an English laden with unique atmosphere, at once exotically local yet recognizably universal throughout.”- Andrew Singer reviewing Faruk Šehić's Quiet Flows the Una in World Literature Today, 2016
• “Our Man in Iraq may well prove to be one of those rare cases where something is actually gained in translation.”- Emily Donaldson reviewing Robert Perišić's novel in The Star, 2013

--Ванилица (talk) 06:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I left my reply on their user talk page. But not before reading Our Man In Iraq by Robert Perisic: Review in the Star. Geo Swan (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Salafi University is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salafi University until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MalayaliWoman (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for creating Swetman Island, Timber Island and Yorkshire Island. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cornish Stannary Parliament, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page King John (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Los Roques (T-93AB), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page or move it yourself. SSSB (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems I was leaving quality control volunteer SSSB a request for caution while they were leaving this boilerplate for incompetent newbies. Geo Swan (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have some. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 02:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Leacock Memorial Medal for Humour does not track the preliminary longlists at all. It never has before, and sources largely don't exist by which any of that content could be added now — and there's no legitimate reason for 2019 to be given unique treatment different than any of the preceding 70 years. Until the final shortlist gets issued, we simply do not care about the initial longlist at all, especially if you have to depend on Orillia's own community hyperlocal to actually source the longlist because no major media care about it either. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is https://www.leacock.ca/pdfs/2019_Leacock_Medal_Long_List_v2.pdf which looks oficial to me. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't care about the award's own self-published official press release at all. We require media to care enough to repackage the press release as news reporting before we care enough to add it to our article, so media reporting always trumps the award's own self-published content in terms of appropriateness for use as a source — the organization's press release is only appropriate for use if no media reportage can be found at all to verify the statement, and even then the question would need to be asked about whether the content needed to be included in the article at all if the press release was the only source that could be found. The source itself isn't the crux of issue in the first place — the issue is that there's no serious reason for the article to document the preliminary longlist at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Bearcat, you may be correct that, in past years, generally only the shortlisted candidates were listed.

  But the other issue, adding references and content in two separate edits... When a reference is relevant to multiple articles I sometimes take it from the article where it was originaly used, and add it to one or more of the other articles where it is relevant. I have done this in two stages many times, hundreds, maybe thousands... I am sure I am far from the only contributor to do so.

  Do you have an actual policy document in mind that discourages good faith contributors from adding references and content in two stages, in reasonably quick succession? If not, how likely is it that you would consider being less hasty to pull the trigger? Geo Swan (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George, perhaps you should change the reference to the official one, rather than secondhand information. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it's not my job to simply assume that you're adding the content and the reference in two separate steps — especially if you add the reference first, in a format that's not consistent with the referencing format being used by the rest of the article, and then significantly lag in terms of adding the actual content for long enough that I have time to catch the addition of an unused reference. If you want to two-step it rather than adding the content and the referencing at the same time, then you need to add the content first and then the reference, not vice versa, because it's not my job to read your mind — I can only judge what I see that you have done, not what you're thinking about doing in the future.

And secondly, you haven't actually given a reason why 2019 needs to be unique in having the preliminary longlist added when we don't have (and can't find adequate sources to add) the preliminary longlists for any other year prior to 2019. All you did is acknowledge that I was correct in saying that it's never been done before, and then move on to your other complaint without actually providing a reason why 2019 needs to start doing something different than what's been done before. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, you and I are both long-term contributors. So, don't you think that, whatever our disagreements, we should try to show some basic respect to one another?

With regard to whether the most recent year should have the eleven initial candidates, or only the shortlisted candidates, when they are chosen... I already acknowledged you might be correct. FWIW 1990 lists ten candidates. Did they shortlist ten books in 1990? Okay. I don't care.

With regard to your comment that the reference I added was "not consistent with the reference formatting being used".

Woah! There are some quality control volunteers who mistakenly think policy authorizes them to unnecessarily rewrite references in a manner that they find aesthetically pleasing. They generally misunderstand that the wikidocuments that warn contributors against mixing or changing "citation styles" refer to mixing the {{cite}} style references with the incompatible Harvard style references. Both inline and list-defined references are completely compatible variants of the <ref>{{cite}}</ref> styles.

Even if, for the sake of argument, it really did represent a policy problem to mix in the first list-defined reference into an article where every other reference was a list-defined {{cite}} reference, how closely did you look at the Stephen Leacock Memorial Medal for Humour? It contains an inconsistent mix of inline {{cite}} references and inline [http:... title] references. So, even from a super-purist interpretation, that new list-defined {{cite}} references can't be added to an article that had consistently used inline {{cite}} references up to that time, THIS article wasn't previously consistent.

With regard to "significant lag"... you reverted my new reference just five minutes after I added it.

I started User:Geo Swan/Uzma Jalaluddin about eight months ago. I started a google news alert on her at the same time. That news alert had fetched me over 30 hits - instances where RS wrote about her or her book.

So, I decided that her nomination might be the moment where I could move the draft to article space without claims of TOOSOON.

As above, I added the Leacock reference I added to the draft to this article. You say you are not a mind-reader? I am not a mind-reader either. Does the table have an explicit title, saying which candidates are listed there, as below?

Winners and shortlisted candidates of the Stephen Leacock Medal for Humour

Year	Author	Title	Reference

No, it does not... and then there are the 10 candidates listed for 1990.

So, Ali Bryan, Hadley Dyer, Uzma Jalaluddin, Cathal Kelly, Martin Myers, all currently lack articles. I am starting a draft at User:Geo Swan/Ali Bryan, which will use the same reference I added here, and I plan to do so for Hadley Dyer, Cathal Kelly, Martin Myers.

So, even if I agreed with your concern, I would not rewind until I had started User:Geo Swan/Hadley Dyer, User:Geo Swan/Cathal Kelly, User:Geo Swan/Martin Myers. Geo Swan (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10 candidates was the shortlist in 1990. No, they've never repeated that since — and note also that the shortlist hasn't always consistently been five titles either, but has also sometimes been three, four or six — but the article isn't making a special "preliminary longlist" exception for 1990, the source explicitly states that the committee just released a longer shortlist in 1990 than they have before or since. (See also the ReLit Awards: they're not veering back and forth between longlists in some years and shortlists in others either, they're only listing the shortlists and it's the award itself that varies the size of its shortlists to sometimes be longer or shorter than other years' shortlists are.)

And no, being longlisted for an award isn't necessarily a notability-clincher in and of itself anyway — but that's kind of beside the point, because if you've actually got 30 reliable sources you can show about her and her book, then she would get over WP:GNG anyway, and thus you wouldn't need an award (or even an award nomination) to make her notable. A writer's notability isn't necessarily contingent on actually having award wins or nominations under her belt, per se — winning a major literary award is obviously a strong notability claim for a writer, but it's not the only way a writer can clear the notability bar. If a writer without major awards can be shown to get over GNG on her sourceability, then she still gets over GNG whether she's got awards to show or not. And the same is true of Dyer and Kelly and Myers: depending on the longlist nomination as the notability claim in and of itself won't cut it per se, but if they make the shortlist when that gets released that will count for more (although the article would still have to be sourced to more than just one piece of technical verification of the shortlist itself), and even if they don't make the shortlist at all they can still be notable anyway if you can actually source them over GNG properly. You have shown a bit of a skewed understanding of what sources do or don't actually count toward GNG sometimes — like journalists whose only substantive non-primary source was an article in the real estate section of her own employer about her struggle to buy a house, and wasn't actually being covered in the context of her journalism — but if you can actually show the correct kind of sources to actually get a writer over GNG, then it doesn't actually matter if she's got awards or not.

I also fail to see how anything I said was "disrespectful" to your status as a longtime contributor; I'll acknowledge that my writing tone is pretty direct, but nothing I said was impolite or disrespectful at all. But you're still derailing the discussion by acknowledging that I'm probably correct that the article doesn't need to note the preliminary longlist at all, and then still veering off to justify the longlist on tangential grounds that are irrelevant to the question of whether the information is fundamentally relevant to the article or not. (Incidentally, I'd also invite you to go back and look at the table carefully to find the formatting error that you introduced, but that's not really central to whether the information belongs in the article or not either.) So, again: do you have a reason why the article needs to contain the preliminary longlist itself? Any other issue is irrelevant. This isn't about reference formatting, or about what writers you are or aren't allowed to work on in your sandbox — the only question here is "why does the preliminary longlist need to be in the article at all", and you haven't even really tried to answer that. Bearcat (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Now that I finished starting draft stubs at User:Geo Swan/Ali Bryan, User:Geo Swan/Hadley Dyer, User:Geo Swan/Cathal Kelly, User:Geo Swan/Martin Myers I rewound the 2019 section.
• I also added the missing descriptive title to the tables for the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s and 2010s.
• Additional comments to follow... Geo Swan (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Taj Mohammed and Nasrullah (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ontario Place station is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ontario Place station until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Joeyconnick (talk) 02:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --WaltCip (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... Which is now moot, because the IP who made the original ANI notice was blocked by Bbb23 as a block evader.--WaltCip (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Outing attempt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11:19, 9 May 2019‎ (talk • contribs) 96.45.202.39 (UTC)

Hello Geo Swan,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

• Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
• Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.

Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News

• Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Discussions of interest

• A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
• There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
• What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

---

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What happened with the 92 sources from the List of celebrities who have had an abortion page? P.S.: Many thanks for all of your work on the page. Scribestress (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you mean this edit?
• Some newspapers only keep the last N years online.
• Some newspapers and other RS sites will do a major reorganization, where, even though they keep their pages online, they break all the old links, because all the pages have new URLs.
• It used to be these URLS could be lost. However, about a decade ago, some contributors started to use archive sites, the most famous one being the wayback machine (http://archive.org). I also use http://webcitation.org/archive.php They are both non-profits, that try to take a snapshot of the appearance of a webpage. Archive.org archived pages are generally more authentic appearing. webcitation will sometimes work on pages archive.org doesn't handle. In theory they assume their non-profit use of the pages qualifies as fair use, and they will remove pages from their archives if the page owner complains. In theory both sites respect something called a "no-robots" directive.
• When you click on a page's history one of buttons at the top says "fix dead links". Clicking that button sets a robot to work to try to archive all the references on the page.
• Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Denison (Royal Navy), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page King Edward (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Abu Jayyid tweet requesting a customized scenario for Call of Duty, set at an airport recently attacked by terrorists.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Abu Jayyid tweet requesting a customized scenario for Call of Duty, set at an airport recently attacked by terrorists.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Geo_Swan harassing User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:2010s Canadian special-purpose aircraft requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Geo Swan,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

---

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Ships by the Cook Islands requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hildegard of Bingen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Backstage (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Sherbourne Street, Suffolk is a redirect to Edwardstone, is it OK to redirect User:Geo Swan/Sherbourne Street, Suffolk to Edwardstone and then history merge it to Sherbourne Street, Suffolk. Note that I am the author of the original article but accept that it doesn't need a separate article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• First my apologies for a lapse. I should have made sure there was a __NOINDEX__ directive on the page. I've done so now. I don't agree Sherbourne Street, Suffolk doesn't merit its own article.

• Redirects from userspace to articles space are prohibited, so we shouldn't do that. Geo Swan (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of it it does or not the history should be moved back to mainspace. And redirect from userspace are fine, just not the other way round. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware of mw:Help:Extension:Kartographer right? Just checking as your user page information about maps seems a bit dated. --Gryllida (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Gryllida, no, I was not aware. Yes, the several hundred maps I created were all created with an online tool that went away over a decade ago. I was just thinking the other day of how much I missed it.
• This project looks extremely interesting. I tried experimenting with it, using the most recent geographical article I started Metishto River - which unfortunately I do not have the geographical coordinates for.
• I have a couple of questions. I hope you don't mind me asking them of you...

1. That online tool would render maps in one of 6 projections, Mercator, which I never used, Orthographic, Lambert Azimuthal and three others. Are all the Kartographer maps Mercator projection.
2. If the map doesn't show a feature, like a river, or a railway, are there any steps one can take to add that feature?
3. There seem to be a small number of additional cartographic databases one can specify. Is there a list? How does one figure out which features the additional databases contain?
4. That online tool required two latitude, longitude pairs. These would become two opposing corners of the map. Is there a similar way to mark the boundaries of the map with this tool?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 00:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting questions. I only know for #2 - add it to www.osm.org, it would become available on-wiki then. I'd suggest to inquire at mw:Help talk:Extension:Kartographer. Gryllida (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Gryllida I've added some simple maps to a dozen or so articles, since you left me this heads-up. So thanks for that. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 03:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm happy it helps. Did you ask your questions some where? I would be curious to know the answers. Gryllida (talk) 04:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please solve the 23 links to the disambiguation page Amir Hamza that you have caused by changing the redirect in a disambiguation page? Thanks in advance! The Banner talk 09:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done several of the links were to Mohammed uncle, not the cricket player. Geo Swan (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Angela McShan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Rosen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Geo Swan (talk) 03:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GS. Please read the guidelines at WP:DABRED - where is says "Do not create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or are likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics" and "Red links should not be the only link in a given entry" Remember dab pages are not list articles - in other words dab pages are directional not informative. Now per "Unlink the entry word but still keep a blue link in the description" if you can find the name of a newspaper, magazine, website or blog that Yasmin Khan writes for that also has an article at WikiP then you can add that as a blue link and restore that persons name to the dab page. Your cooperation in this will be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 04:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. 2019-08-25 19:45 I start Yasmin Khan (disambiguation), I leave Yasmin Khan (writer) a red link, because I expect to start it momentarily.
2. 2019-08-25 20:38 you excise Yasmin Khan (writer) from the dab.
3. 2019-08-25 21:42 I start Yasmin Khan (writer)
4. 2019-08-25 21:46 after checking the new article's links I find you trimmed the dab page, and I restore it.
5. 2019-08-25 22:51 you excise the Yasmin Khan (writer) entry again, on the grounds it contains only a redlink, apparently without checking to confirm whether Yasmin Khan (writer) was still a redlink.
6. 2019-08-25 23:01 you left the note, above, apparently without checking to confirm whether Yasmin Khan (writer) was still a redlink.
7. 2019-08-26 09:43 I restore the Yasmin Khan (writer) entry.

• MarnetteD I do not believe DABRED is applicable to Yasmin Khan (writer). She is not just a writer of a pair of cookbooks, many RS, around the world, have noted that she was a lawyer and human rights worker, before she became a food writer. Those RS have commented that, after shifting to food writing her cookbooks serve to acquaint food readers with the human rights and other issues Palestinian and Iranian people face. It is not just a few RS. I became aware of her when PBS Newshour devoted over five minutes to interviewing her, last night.
• When I started the dab page, I left a redlink, without a blue link, as I started the Yasmin Khan (writer) article. I anticipated it would take 15 or 20 minutes to publish the first draft of that article. For various reasons it took me just under two hours. This is a very minor breach of rules. Do you want an apology for this? Please see User:Geo Swan/opinions/On apologies. Geo Swan (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you got her article going - well done. MarnetteD|Talk 15:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just figured it was an American film, it may in fact be Canadian. Vincelord (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A reply to this...

  Sigh more cultural imperialism... Geo Swan (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Louai Sakka, in a contraband Guantanamo style orange jumpsuit.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Geo Swan,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion

• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
• Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.

Not English

• A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.

Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Margaret Visser, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mayan and HMH (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fireboats of North America, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --Trialpears (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	100,000th edit award
	Hello GS. Let me be the first to congratulate you on your 100,000th edit! You are now entitled to place the 100,000 Edit Star on your bling page! or you could choose to display the {{User 100,000 edits}} user box. Or both! Thanks for all your work at the 'pedia! Cheers, — MarnetteD|Talk 16:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should stop pestering Fram. - Sitush (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As Fram has made it clear he isn't interested in your advice or admonishments, and has removed your attempts to leave such commentary on his talk page multiple times, I advise you to cease such attempts, lest you be found guilty of harassment. There is no need to post on Fram's talk page offering broad criticism or advice; should you require dispute resolution, keep it to the article or project talk pages, please. KillerChihuahua 17:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Policy requires us to inform people when we discuss their contributions and comments at WPANI, and other venues. I've found it unpleasant when I have seen people discussing me, and not informing me. That's why I left the heads-up, that I addressed your question on your talk page.

Note, the face value of Fram's edit summary "Now try it without the personal attacks" is an implied invitation to try again. Geo Swan (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Policy does NOT require you harass other editors. Full stop. Just stop talking about, and to, Fram. Easy peasy. Do something else. KillerChihuahua 20:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• KillerChihuahua, in this comment you wrote "as it is you're hardly in a position to [[Tu quoque|cast aspersions]]." Sorry, I didn't study Latin, and I am not sure what you mean. Geo Swan (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tu quoque was linked. Follow the link, and the article has all the information on the term you might need. KillerChihuahua 20:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or even simpler, read what I used as the piped text - cast aspersions. Don't cast aspersions. KillerChihuahua 20:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• KillerChihuahua, isn't it a little more complicated than that? Did you mean to imply you think there is something wrong with my record of comments on talk pages, and other fora? If you didn't mean that, let's forget it.
• Alternatively, maybe you do think my comment record is problematic, but you lack the time, or patience, or interest, to explain yourself?
• I wrote an essay Every question, every disagreement, is a teachable moment Short version: the people who question us, challenge us, won't learn if we don't explain ourselves, and, sometimes, while offering them that explanation, we may realize they had a valid point, after all. I hope you take the time to read it. Geo Swan (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Fram's made it clear he doesn't want your advice or comments on his talk page. Don't persist in posting there, that's harassment. Don't talk about Fram if you can avoid it; that way you won't need to notify him (or not) that you're talking about him. Find something else to do. Because yes, there is something very wrong with your posting multiple times on his talk page when you know your input is not wanted there. It's harassment, and that's not acceptable. I don't know how to make it any more clear. KillerChihuahua 20:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (sigh) I am cutting and pasting what I wrote, above: "Note, the face value of Fram's edit summary "Now try it without the personal attacks" is an implied invitation to try again." If we ever interact again could you please confine your comments to the English language? Geo Swan (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sigh all you like. Fram's edit summary has no bearing on whether you get to harass Fram. KillerChihuahua 23:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, articles are not improved by adding the awarding organization's own self-published press release about itself as duplicate referencing for a fact that already has a proper notability-supporting media citation to support it.

Firstly, no fact in an article ever needs multiple sources to reverify it; each statement only needs one footnote that properly supports it, and if you want to add any additional references you need to either find a fact in the article that is supported by the source but has no footnote for it at all yet, or add new facts that are supported by the source but not reflected in the article at all — adding a new source that just reverifies facts that already have sources, without adding anything new, is not adding value to the article.

And secondly, even when it comes to sourcing the basic fact of the award win itself, the award organization's own self-published press release is automatically the least valuable or notability-assisting source you can add to an article, because it doesn't represent independent reportage of the fact in an unaffiliated source. Writers aren't automatically notable because they've won just any literary award that exists — an award has to get media coverage about the award before it even counts as a notability-making award at all, so the award's own press release is never even a notability-clinching source in the first place.

The press release simply has no value at all as a source in its own right. It doesn't add anything on notability grounds, because the press release wouldn't have singlehandedly clinched Cathal Kelly's notability at all if the fact had not been picked up by any real media as a news story — and it doesn't add anything on verifiability grounds either, because the article already has a proper notability-supporting source for his award win and doesn't need a second source to redundantly reverify the same fact. It's simply not needed, for any reason at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is in reference to this edit I made to Cathal Kelly, that was started in June. I started a draft, in April. I added a reference my draft used, that wasn't used in the article, before I retired it. Geo Swan (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

After a successful first iteration of the “Months of African Cinema” last year, we are happy to announce that it will be happening again this year, starting from October 1! In the 2018 edition of the contest, about 600 Wikipedia articles were created in at least 8 languages. There were also contributions to Wikidata and Wikimedia commons, which brought the total number of wikimedia pages created during the contest to over 1,000.

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which have been dedicated to creating and improving content that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora. Join us in this global edit-a-thon, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing participants in the following manner:

• Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
• Diversity winner
• Gender-gap fillers

For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited French Broad River, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Broad River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	For saving Rolf Steiner. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Salahuddin (Bagram captive). Since you had some involvement with the Salahuddin (Bagram captive) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Karnal (Afghan leader) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Source insufficient for a stand alone bio article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You undid my clearly explained reverts without bothering to think of a reason. The only motivation I can infer from your talk page post is that you wished to provoke me. If you have a reason to revert - a policy or guideline that you think applies - then you must state it when reverting. If you do not, then do not revert. 46.208.236.175 (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 46.208.236.175, I did explain my reversion, at Talk:Steve Fossey. You had been edit-warring, elsewhere. Your edits were questionable, and poorly explained. Geo Swan (talk) 02:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You explained nothing. Why lie? 46.208.236.175 (talk) 07:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• We are all fallible. I am fallible. You are fallible.

Your edit history, short as it is, is marked by edit-warring and inappropriate hostility. This is a valid reason to not place trust in your inadequate explanations. Your hostility strongly suggests you are unwilling or unable to acknowledge that you, too, are fallible. Geo Swan (talk) 07:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If people undo my edits for no reason, dishonestly accuse me of vandalism, make personal attacks against me, etc etc, they will probably find me to react with hostility. If people point to a guideline or policy that they believe I haven't taken account of in my edits, and undo them with a valid explanation, they will obtain a different reaction. You clearly set out explicitly to provoke me; you picked a random article and undid my edits there for no reason. Guess what reaction that brings from any serious editor working hard to improve the encyclopaedia. 46.208.236.175 (talk) 08:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have indulged in a little bit more pointless reverting, making an article that I fixed once again violate the manual of style. Stop vandalising now. 46.208.236.175 (talk) 08:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There are people who regard all questions or challenges as personal attacks, no matter how tactfully they are phrased. I encourage you to not be one of those people.
• Noting you have been edit warring is not a "lie", is not a personal attack, when you have, in fact, been edit-warring. Geo Swan (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop pinging me, please stop discussing me, please stop following me around. Fram (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Geo Swan, to be succinct - if you didn't understand my position when I elaborated my reasoning, I don't think you will now, and that's okay - everyone's different. I think if you re-read the last two comments on the entire thread, you will see that one of the (many) facets of my position against it was for "outing" other women who may not have wanted to be on the list, collected from minimal or dubious RS. I am surprised as to why this examination about my position on an old thread is being resurrected, as it would seem to be of no profit to do so, nor of any interest to me.

I'm not really sure how a single-word grammar tense adjustment I made on the other article, which I added for clarity because the man is deceased, exposes any personal feelings to you about whether or not I believe the article should be there. There is no extant debate for the existence of that article, and if I were to engage in an AFD for or against the article, I would give it considered thought before expressing a firm opinion either way - as I would for any other topic. I provide factual information for many articles, whether I agree with the topic or not, in order to improve Wikipedia.

The one conclusion that you can draw with certainty from my activity here is the belief that every edit I make is an attempt to improve Wikipedia. LovelyLillith (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited RFNS Kacau, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pacific News (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Geo Swan,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 799 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools

• It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
• It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.

Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes

• Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
• Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.

Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ferry Street Bridge (Buffalo), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WKBW (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed your edits to To Kill a Mockingbird on my watchlist and then saw that you'd made a similar edit to other articles, I hope you don't mind me asking you about them. I was wondering why you added the full citation to the {{reflist}} and called the named ref in the body, rather than defining the citation in the body? I've never seen it done that way, and I figured with your vast WP experience, you probably know something I don't and I'd like to learn what it is. Schazjmd (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I used to use inline citations, until I saw someone use what is called a "list-defined" reference. It puzzled me, at first, but after looking in to it I decided it was the superior way to define the reference.

1. It is what the article says that is important. But, with inline references, much of the paragraph is metadata, making it much harder to update the article's actual content. I have been told there are optional extensions, that use colour to show what is content and what is metadata. But, since I also work on non-WMF wikis, I don't use extensions like that. I am cautious about using some of the newer, cool templates people like inventing, as well, because I don't want to get used to anything nonstandard, I won't find on other wikis.

   On of the gods of the UNIX World was a guy named Bill Joy. He is probably the most famous developer of BSD Unix, developed at Berkeley. When he was a senior systems developer there, he authored several of the core BSD untilities, including an editor called vi, that replaced the original primitive non-visual editor, ed. Then, when smarty-pants started forming Silicon Valley spinoffs, he became Vice President for technical development at Sun Microsystems, a leading Silicon Valley company that built UNIX workstations.

   Well, there was a religious war among UNIX geeks as to whether vi was superior to emacs. After Bill Joy had moved to Sun, emacs fans started saying "Here is proof that emacs is superior to vi. Why even Bill Joy (the vi developer) doesn't use vi anymore. I heard that, over and over, for years. Until I read an interview with Joy, around 1985, where he was asked about this. While, it was true, he didn't use vi, anymore, there was a completely different explanation for that. He wrote that, internally, he used something called Interleaf, a very expensive desktop publishing program for all his editing, just like everyone else at Sun Microsystems. They were partners with Sun. In return for supplying everyone at Interleaf with free workstations, everyone at Sun got to use their beautiful $10,000 program. And, this is the kicker, as for not using vi when he was giving a technical presentation, he didn't use vi because he had made it so customizable, and the source was in the public domain, so every lab he visited would have a version of vi slightly different than what he was used to. He described how it was extremely embarrassing to be giving a technical presentation to other smarty-pants, using a program you were famous for developing, and then not having it work for you, as if you had forgotten how it worked. You'd know it was because you had encountered a local modification, but they wouldn't, and they would all think they were smarter than you.

   So, when he gave presentations outside his own lab he always stepped down an used the primitive ed, which he knew would work the same way, everywhere.

   I too use the subsection of WMF features I think will work the same way, everywhere.

2. When a reference is used multiple times, a contributor can never count on it being defined, inline, in the subsection of an article they were currently working on. So, there is no disadvantage to defining all references within the {{reflist}}.

• When I fix a reference, I always leave as much of it intact as possible. I prefer references to have every field on a separate line, but if I fix a reference with all fields on a single line, I leave it like that, merely adding new fields, or fixing broken ones... Following the principle of "if it ain't broke don't fix it..."
• I sometimes get pushback, where people move the list-defined references into the body of the article, or take a reference I defined with every field on its own line, and transforming it to one where all the fields are on a single line. It's disruptive, because diffs rely heavily on newlines. I've started over 3000 articles. I sometimes return to articles I worked on months or years ago, when a google alert tells me that topic may need updating. What I routinely find is that a diff from my last edit to the current day show massive changes. But, that diff won't be of much help determining whether the content of the article has been updated. What I often find, if I spend the time to page through every version, one diff at a time, is that all those other edits were to the articles metadatat, its references, its templates, or were relatively trivial corrections to spelling, punctuation, or minor word order corrections. What I often find is that no one else has done any work on updating the article's content - what it actually says.
• Some of the people who give me pushback, will point to some of our wikidocuments, which warn against modifying the style of references an article uses, and those aggressive pushers-back, or push-backers, won't listen when I try to point out how they are misinterpreting those wikidocuments.

  Those wikidocument's warnings all date back to 2006. When I first started contributing here, in 2004, no articles used references, at all. All articles used a combination of bare-urls and an external links section, as support for references hadn't been added to the WMF software suite. Around 2006 multipe incompatible methods of adding references to articles became available.

  When I encountered an article that used one, I puzzled out how to use it, and used it, exclusively, for what seemed like a long time, but might have been less than a year. I used it as it was superior to bare-urls, but it was definitely inferior to the {{cite}} system when combined with <ref></ref> pairs.

  The system I had originally used was completely incompatible with <ref></ref> pairs. An article that used them would have two different sets of footnotes. Chaos.

  So, the wikidocuments had good reason to warn against mixing styles.

  The combo of <ref></ref> pairs mixed with {{cite}} templates has proven so overwhelmingly popular even very experienced contributors don't realize that there are about 10,000 older articles that still use one of the other older incompatible citation styles. Wikidocuments warn against trying to convert those article.

  Both inline and list-defined references are instances of a single citation style. If you decide to use list-defined references, and you get push-back, ping me, and I will come and help you explain this.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I appreciate the time you took to educate me. Now that you've explained it, I can see how defining the cite in reflist rather than body could be a real advantage in editing. I'm reminded of the many times I've Ctrl+F'd to track down where a ref is defined so I could fix something. I think I'm going to use your approach in my future articles. Thanks again. Schazjmd (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You left out the BBC reference in a few book articles. Also it’s not ‘the’ BBC News, it’s just BBC News, or the BBC. That needs addressed. AR Gleeson (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• AR Gleeson, I see you added a missing reference to Harry_Potter. Thanks.
• You warned me I left out that reference in "a few" unnamed articles. The BBC list contained 100 entries. I tried to add to the articles on those 100 titles that the BBC listed them. If you came across a single instance of a missing reference, then, may I suggest it was hardly useful to state you found "a few" instances. Alternately, if you found more than one instance, may I suggest that, if you weren't going to add the reference to those articles, you could have listed them here, rather than imply I should go back and check the other 99 articles. Geo Swan (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Esmail (Afghan leader) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The administrative review board is a primary source, need additional sources to establish notability. I was unable to find any.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cerebellum (talk) 10:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your recent question: WP:LTA/BKFIP – community-banned for the kind of behavior you just witnessed. Favonian (talk) 12:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent articles, including Helen Spitzer Tichauer, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. Let me know if you need help, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Geo Swan! About your request for protection at RFP, I am going to decline it. As was pointed out there, an editor is within his rights to remove an unsourced sentence. And by repeatedly restoring it, you are the one who is in danger of violating WP:3RR and getting called out for edit warring. I suggest you stop doing that. Or else restore it with a source, at which point their removal would be disruptive.

You seem to feel that these IPs are actually a blocked user you are familiar with. In that case, I suggest you either report them at that blocked user's SPI investigation page (if there was one), or else mention the situation to any checkuser, who can quietly check them without the usual problem that they are not supposed to publicly link IPs to named users. There are two three different IPs here, but they all geolocate similarly. And I think I can guess who you are talking about. The one I noticed was blocked in July 2018 for having a promotional username, and then came back in August under their own name and edited the article to remove all the bad stuff.

My own reaction to that article is that I would be tempted to nominate it for deletion. I don't see how he meets GNG. But I see you wrote the article so you are probably not inclined to do that. However, the article does need much better sourcing. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are still doing the reverts, accusing the other party of being a sock of a blocked editor. You are NOT ALLOWED to make that kind of accusation without any evidence and without taking any steps to get evidence or deal with the situation, such as reporting the issue and your evidence at SPI or to an administrator/checkuser. (Note that I cannot settle this issue since I am not a checkuser. See Category:Wikipedia checkusers.) I have locked the page for 24 hours, since the edit warring (noting that you were not the only one reverting) was getting disruptive and nothing was happening at the talk page. This kind of disagreement needs to be resolved at the talk page, not in edit summaries. Your best permanent solution to this situation is to prove that the IPs actually are the blocked user you accuse them of being. Otherwise you really have no justification for reverting them and restoring the unsourced content they keep deleting. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• MelanieN, how much experience do you have with filing SPI reports?

  Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Renamed user 49274c4c204245204241434b/Archive. I initiated more than two dozen SPI investigations about this particular wikistalker, so far.

  My experience, so far, has been for administrators at SPI and semi-protection to pass the buck, and each tell me I should be using the other channel to address my wikistalker.

• WRT checkuser... Excuse me, isn't checkuser's use to look behind named wiki-IDs, and examine the underlying IP addresses they use? So, those with checkuser authority can compare the IP addresses used, and make an informed opinion as to whether multiple IDs are a single individual, or room-mates? So, since, my wikistalker's use of over 80 different anonymous IP addresses, suggests they are using some form of IP spoofing, do you really think calling for a checkuser would have any value whatsoever?
• As for documenting that the IPs were my wikistalker, you seem to have forgotten the effort I put into documenting their block evasion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection here and here.
• There is something wildly off-balance here. Documenting my wikistalker's vandalism, has, over the last three years, consumed literally hundreds of hours of my time. I am not exagerrating. Hundreds of hours. Meanwhile, each instance of vandalism has cost them a trivial amount of time, maybe only 30 seconds each.

  You seem to be claiming I did not make enough effort to document their vandalism. However, am I incorrect to think you didn't bother to actually take a look at the documentation I did provide?

  Each of those over two dozen SPI investigations I initiated required a significant effort. And, frankly, those who monitor the SPI page can't be counted to read them thoroughly enough to justify the effort I put into them.

• I am not the vandal here, and I question whether the implied admonishments you have left here are in order. What I would prefer would be for the project's administrators to present an united front, with me, to counter this wikistalker. Your reaction at semi-protection is not the only time an administrator's first reaction was to side with the indefinitely blocked vandal. It is really disappointing. Geo Swan (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can see how this would be frustrating, and you aren’t getting much/any help from admins. One thing that might have helped us would be: WHO is the blocked user you say these are all socks of? You kept pointing to IPs and accusing them, but we have had nothing but your accusation to go on. That is of no use to a non-checkuser like me, and you never said who you think the parent is. You did give me a clue this time, mentioning User:Renamed user 49274c4c204245204241434b, so thank you - at least now I can do a little detective work. That name was created in February 2017 and indeffed for sockpuppetry in November 2017 by Berean Hunter. Their SPI discussion led me to also look at User:CommotioCerebri, which was apparently the original name of the “Renamed user”. That account is now blocked and globally locked. I also saw a mention of LTA User:Cebr1979, but AFAICT checkusers did not find a connection. That account was blocked in May 2017 and continued to have recognized socks until December 2018. Apparently that LTA mostly uses IPs now. I don’t know which of these people, if any, you accuse the current IPs of being. If you don’t want to say here, you could email me. But we can see how effective it is for someone to edit only as IPs - it’s much harder for an IP to get identified as a blocked user. I also noticed an admin comment that since the addresses can change often it is almost hopeless blocking them. Rangeblocks can be imposed, short term, in cases of disruptive behavior. But maybe we could use geolocations plus editing behavior to treat IPs as WP:DUCKs. The two IPs currently at issue [14] geolocate to the same place. User:Berean Hunter, can you tell me where the blocked users 4927…. and Commotio… geolocate? Or if I ask you if it’s a certain location, can you say yes or no? -- MelanieN (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN, I can't disclose locations due to the checkuser and privacy policies. We can but only in the event of very serious LTA abuse and this wouldn't measure up to that level. One thing that I can do which may help is that I have requested that the stewards undo the courtesy vanishing so that we should soon only have to deal with the account by name and not the renamed user's name. I may be able to look into this more tomorrow but it is getting late here and I'm headed for bed.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the IPs, I have put some blocks in place. No accounts found. Regarding the undoing of the courtesy vanishing, that will happen but there is a new technical problem with global renames that will mean that it is delayed. That problem is being addressed at phabricator here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The courtesy vanishing has been reversed. You may want to update any documentation. I have requested that the SPI case and its archive be moved back to the original name.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Berean Hunter, thanks for the reversal.
• Thanks for trying the checkuser tool. I last requested the use of checkuser last April, when they made the mistake of using a newly created ID VballJohnny, for their harrasment.

  I still don't really understand the limits of checkuser. Some of your colleagues carry being circumspect as to its results to obfuscating how it works. April is too late to check, now, correct? Geo Swan (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, they are at it again -- 100.15.60.125 Geo Swan (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• April is too late to check. We have a 90 day window for data retention within the system. If that account pops up again then they could be checked. 100.15.xxx.xxx is not the same person as that IP is in Virginia and not a proxy.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:HMS Endurance 3 copy.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Wikiacc (¶) 21:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikiacc, Apparently I uploaded this in 2006, when I was newbie. I looked for the original. And only kind of found it - here [15]. I think it is clearly the same image, although it is lower resolution, and black and white. It identifies the photographer, and the date. Geo Swan (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! I agree that this is enough to know the source of the image. I removed the no source tag. Wikiacc (¶) 23:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, let me thank you. I'll port it to the commons. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Diane Webber (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Patrick Weathers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Insider (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	Rosguill (talk)	47,395	Patrol Page Curation
2	Onel5969 (talk)	41,883	Patrol Page Curation
3	JTtheOG (talk)	11,493	Patrol Page Curation
4	Arthistorian1977 (talk)	5,562	Patrol Page Curation
5	DannyS712 (talk)	4,866	Patrol Page Curation
6	CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk)	3,995	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	3,812	Patrol Page Curation
8	Boleyn (talk)	3,655	Patrol Page Curation
9	Ymblanter (talk)	3,553	Patrol Page Curation
10	Cwmhiraeth (talk)	3,522	Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Geo Swan, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, ★Trekker (talk) 21:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Hello, Geo Swan,

Thank you for creating High Arctic Haulers.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thanks for adding this article. The show looks interesting.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Whoisjohngalt}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Whoisjohngalt (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abdullah Said al Libi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Khorasan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Geo Swan (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

High Arctic Haulers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Nunatsiaq

Highway Thru Hell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Nunatsiaq

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Geo Swan (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David M. Thomas Jr. is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David M. Thomas Jr. until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. John from Idegon (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator withdrew AFD after a discussion of WP:SOLDIER, and flag rank... Geo Swan (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting the cutter articles on these four World War II heroes.

I'm expecting a name change for Harris (WPC-1144). His Silver Star award and family records list him as Glen Livingston Harris, with only one "n" in the first name. The misspelling has apparently been propagated from 1940s era news articles. A similar name correction has already been made for Charles Moulthrope (WPC-1141), where the final "e" in the last name was originally omitted. – Maliepa (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Maliepa, thanks for all your work, in return.

Please feel free to move the article, and amend the redlinks, as you see fit, without a further heads-up. I agree that the articles should be at their real name(s), when those have been clarified.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine this was inadvertent, when you remove the comments of two other editors when adding your comment? I will leave you to restore your own comment.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it for you: two removed comments are back, along with one you meant to leave. Thins are changing rapidly on that page, and I guess you might have been editing an older version.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I left a thank you on User talk:ThatMontrealIP. Yes, inadvertent.

I'd still like to have that general discussion on NOTINHERITED and the Royal Family.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ahmed Siddiqui (German) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Siddiqui (German) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Störm (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Störm renamed Ahmed Siddiqui (German) to Ahmed Siddiqui (terrorist) - which I thought was a lapse from BLP - the man does not seem to have ever been convicted, and his apparent confession occurred at a notorious torture camp. So, I moved it back to the original name. Störm's nomination for deletion seems to have come in lieu of an explanation for renaming the article. If he or she thought Ahmed Siddiqui was merely a figure in the 2010 bomb plot deletion was not in order -- redirection was. I decided to redirect it. I think CSD#G7 authorizes me to do that. Geo Swan (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not a static property; it can change. People can accomplish new things that they hadn't accomplished yet the first time, and receive new coverage that they didn't yet have the first time, which changes the notability equation — so a person who did not clear our notability standards as of 2017 can absolutely clear them now. An AFD discussion does not represent a permanent ban on the subject ever being allowed to have an article, and often just means "they haven't done anything notable enough yet" — but people who did not clear the notability bar at one particular point in time can absolutely still go on to achieve more notable things, and garner better coverage for them, than they had yet at the time of the first discussion.

So the fact that I was the original deletion nominator for both Rachel Giese and Desmond Cole doesn't mean I object to either of them having articles now — Giese won a notable literary award in 2019 that she had not yet won as of 2017, and Desmond Cole just published a new book which didn't exist yet as of 2017, which means that their includability has changed due to the existence of new accomplishments and new sourcing that didn't exist yet at the time of the original discussions.

It works the same way in other fields, too: people who had premature "campaign brochure" articles created at a time when they were merely candidates for WP:NPOL-passing offices, and were deleted on that basis, do sometimes go on to actually win the election in the end, and thus get articles again regardless of the original deletion discussion. Musicians who tried to misuse Wikipedia as a PR platform at a time when they were just aspiring wannabes do sometimes go on to actually pass WP:NMUSIC months or years later. And on and so forth: the fact that they were deleted before, at a time when they didn't have a credible notability claim yet, doesn't mean a new article can't be started now that they have a stronger notability claim than they did the first time. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Swan, Please read this and add what I am asking to be added. Thanks!—Spasiba5 (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Spasiba5!

In general, I'll help other people...

I don't userstand the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_Register_of_Citizens#Reversion.

If I were to make an edit, on your behalf, I'd have to fully understand the edit, and assure myself it was a policy compliant edit. An edit I make, even if done at the request of someone else, would become my responsibility.

Are you asking me to make it because the article is semi-protected, and you don't have enough edits under your belt to be autoconfirmed? Yes, in general, I'll provide that kind of help - provided I understand the edit in question.

I won't make an edit someone requests when they are trying to protect themselves from WP:3RR.

Do you know how diffs work? How to provide them? If not Help:Diff may help.

Did you want me to restore this version? I can't do this as I don't understand the underlying issues. Sorry. Geo Swan (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking to add a sentence from the cited reference already used. Please read what I have posted there if possible. Thanks!—Spasiba5 (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Please use diffs.

As above, in general, I'll help other people... but, if I were to make an edit, on your behalf, I'd have to fully understand the edit, and assure myself it was a policy compliant edit. An edit I make, even if done at the request of someone else, would become my responsibility...

Because you aren't using diffs it is not clear to me what you are asking me to re-add. Even if I knew what you wanted me to add, I'd have to understand the edit thoroughly, because it would become my responsibility. And, I don't understand the underlying issues.

Sorry Geo Swan (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Christopher Middleton (navigator), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hannah (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Geo Swan,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources

• There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
• A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
• A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
• A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cyclone-class patrol ship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Occupation of Iraq (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gracie Gold, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mary Cain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Geo Swan (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Des Groseillier Coldones.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Brent Kavanaugh. Since you had some involvement with the Brent Kavanaugh redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abdul Quddoos Khan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Quddoos Khan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Störm (talk) 08:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I keep forgetting to ask you what the map does? It doesn't show the town or have the inlet marked. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I took for granted the very useful tool that was online about a dozen years ago, that would use public domain data (out of date), and supply you with a freely reusable map in just a couple of minutes. I used it to make and upload about 200 maps, mainly orthographic or lambert projection. Media related to Drawings by Geo Swan at Wikimedia Commons I hate Mercator projection. If I had anticipated the unsung volunteers who maintained that site would stop maintaining it I would have thanked them regularly, and used it more often.

  I really missed it.

  When someone drew my attention to the <mapframe> directive I saw it as a partial substitute to that lost site. But I don't know how to use it fully, yet. I suspect that there are additional fields that allow a more skilled user to have the maps rendered by <mapframe> to include municipalities, railways, highways. I wasn't able to find any tutorials.

  So, why did I think this map was useful, even though it doesn't render the town? I didn't know where Rankin Inlet was. The existing map was simply not finely grained enough.

  Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CambridgeBayWeather:

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Billy Evans (hotelier) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Evans (hotelier) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Andrew nyr (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your recent edit to Owatonna Senior High School appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. Gab4gab (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Gab4gab, I followed the link to Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Lists_of_people you provided. It is unclear to me which specific passage you thought was applicable.

  I know REDLINK counsels contributors to not remove redlinks to topics about which an article could reasonably be written.

  So, do you think there would have been any value to the project for you to consider whether David Crowley (filmmaker) was someone about whom an article could be written? Geo Swan (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • We don't generally put redlinks in school notable alumni lists as they invite cruft. There is also no source in the redirect to tie the individual to the school. And to answer your direct question, no. I don't think there is any reason to add to the already way too many bios of marginally important people associated with the entertainment business. John from Idegon (talk) 05:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. John from Idegon, first, the quote field in the reference I supplied explicitly linked Crowley to the school.

     Someone else created that redirect, recently - and inappropriately, in my opinion.

  2. I haven't finished my draft of the article on Crowley, but, I assure you, the many RS that cover him do establish he is not just a "marginally important person associated with the entertainment business". When the feature length documentary about his murder of his wife and child, and his own suicide, was released, at least a dozen the reviewers wrote that his descent into alt-right conspiracies had driven him mad, mad enough to murder his family. Geo Swan (talk) 06:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That's nice. Before he goes into a notable alumni list, we'll need a ref to his attendance. John from Idegon (talk) 09:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference Geo Swan provided did confirm his attendance. Writing the biography article before adding the name to a notable alumni list avoids this churning. A good thing in my opinion. Gab4gab (talk) 12:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    1. John from Idegon says, the list entry shouldn't have been added unless I also added a ref that substantiated it;
    2. Gab4gab acknowledges that I did supply an appropriate ref, but seems to be saying redlinks should never be added to list. Geo Swan (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Claudene Christian is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claudene Christian until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Claudene Christian and cheerleader dolls - company-pic.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, regarding List of modernized adaptations of old works, I applaud your efforts. I agree that the topic is salvageable. If the AfD discussion does not result in deletion, we can discuss inclusion criteria on the list's talk page. I've rescued some lists before, sometimes in the middle of an AfD, sometimes after deletion, so I sympathize with the challenges here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using innuendos while casting aspirations, such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Haynes can be considered a personal attack. Such a negative line of comments does not get a free pass by adding "No offense". It also seems to imply that other editors agreeing "are in the same boat". It is the right of any editor to question the notability and stand alone status of a subject, especially when done so according to their understanding of policy. Civility does not mean we cannot disagree but it should be done without making it personal.

Such attacks, possibly as a diversionary tactic, should not be made personal. WP:NPA states: Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all. Really, the comments should be removed. Otr500 (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Death of Kenton Joel Carnegie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cry Wolf (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Geo Swan (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Claudene Christian aboard the HMS Bounty, from the Halifax Chronicle Herald.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Claudene Christian and cheerleader dolls - company-pic.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ((Vakhidov)) Sobit (Abdumukit) Valikhonovich. Since you had some involvement with the ((Vakhidov)) Sobit (Abdumukit) Valikhonovich redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 00:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wayne Arthurson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Metis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lucy Maud Montgomery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kevin Sullivan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Geo Swan. You have new messages at Andrew nyr's talk page.
Message added 02:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 02:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Children's Hospital at London Health Sciences Centre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Victoria Hospital

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And as I've told you before, I use Twinkle to initiate AFD discussions — and Twinkle is supposed to automatically notify the creator of the nominated page as part of the nomination process. And while there can occasionally be a system bug whereby Twinkle fails to properly complete a step for some technical reason outside of my control, I still have no special responsibility to have gone out of my way to double check whether it properly notified you or not after the fact: with Twinkle, I'm allowed to hit the "submit" button and then walk away without doing anything else.

As valuable and important as notifications are, it is ultimately your responsibility to watchlist any articles you feel strongly about, and/or monitor the deletion sorting queues for subject areas you're interested in. If you depend solely on notifications, you are going to miss out on things — sometimes automated tools screw up even when being used by conscientious editors, and sometimes newer editors don't know that notification is even encouraged in the first place. And, in fact, while notification is certainly encouraged, there actually is no rule dictating that it's mandatory. So it's ultimately your responsibility to check Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Canada a couple of times a week regardless of whether you've been notified of anything or not, because nobody can guarantee that you'll always get notified of everything you might be interested in. Bearcat (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Kamilya Mohammedi Tuweni has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subject was treated abhorrently, but being detained inhumanely is not a guarantee of notability. I see no indication of lasting notability on a search. This is essentially a BLP1E.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I note you are the creator of the relatively new Republic of Fiji Naval Service page. I am recommending to shift the page to Republic of Fiji Navy, since that's what they do officially call it on their naval website and local news. While I note that Wikipedia is not obliged to use official names, I would think either the shorter form Fiji Navy, Fijian Navy would be more appropriate if Republic of Fiji Navy is not used.

https://www.rfmf.mil.fj/historical-44th-anniversary/ https://fijisun.com.fj/2019/03/29/fiji-navy-use-kikau-to-conduct-joint-inspection/

I will leave it up to you, thanks for reading. Seloloving (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 - SchroCat (talk) 08:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]