User talk:Rebbing

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:SwisterTwister. Thank you. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

stop misrepresenting wikipedia policies and guidelines. Thank you. Pwolit iets (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This from the editor who insists blogs count as reliable sources as long as they're not "written in a personalized way" (diff) and that ABOUTSELF can apply to a food product (diff)? Rebbing 16:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're back for more. No worries. The more you tag, the more people will see how silly you and your friends are acting. Seriously, I can't believe that guy saying buckwheat honey's medicinal uses would only be found in "glossy magazines". [1] Pretty out of touch if you ask me. Here's a pic for decoration. Sole Flounder (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the lovely picture. It's delightful! Are bees' pollen sacks ordinarily that orange?

I'm glad you're willing to live with the merge tags: they ensure a wider audience, including those who visit the affected articles, will be aware of and able to participate in the discussion. I took a look at the Google Scholar results, and I also didn't see anything that would be appropriate for us to include, especially keeping in mind MEDRS's mandate that "all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge." Fashion magazines—which I will freely admit to reading—are often much looser about evidentiary support for such claims. Rebbing 21:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, glad you like it! I don't know about those pollen sacks. Sole Flounder (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Writer's Barnstar

Hi Rebecca, this is Mariano (Mpaniello). Thanks so much for your welcome message and for the advice on the nuances of posting -- I hope this is the right medium for sending thanks! I'll certainly keep your advice in mind. I chose a writer's barnstar because I noticed your mention of having worked on the Flannery O'Connor article -- she's been one of my favorites since my freshman year of college back in the 80s (Sewanee, a real bastion of Southern lit -- Eudora Welty was the writer in residence when I was there). I'll be sure to check out the O'Connor page so I can behold your handiwork! I'm a graphic designer, and though my Wiki skills might be a bit sloppy due to my unfamiliarity with the rules, I'm also a huge fan of meticulous formatting, having done much document layout work in my time. Have a great long weekend, and please don't hesitate to give me any more pointers if ever I stray from the righteous path! Mpaniello (talk) 00:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mpaniello! Sewanee is right in the heart of Southern literature, from what I've heard, so I'm not surprised you got to read her. I only came across Miss O'Connor's writing this past winter, but I am sold.

Wikipedia's not easy to pick up, but you're already off to a great start. You're a fine writer, meticulous, agreeable, and willing to learn: the most important things here.

Also, I work from home, and I am embarrassed to say I hadn't realized this was Labor Day weekend. I've decided to celebrate—thank you, and best wishes! Rebbing 04:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This time I saw a note by administrator Kudpung on his talk page asking him to slow down. User talk:SweetCanadianMullet.

1, 2. --Marvellous Spider-Man 02:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marvellous Spider-Man: What do you see him doing wrong? His recent patrols (log) don't appear to be problematic. The single page that you unreviewed, The Voices (UKR), was patrolled nearly a month ago (log)—before either of Kudpung's messages. With all due respect, I'm unclear what you would like me to do. Do you want me to talk to him for you? Are you asking me to follow up with Kudpung about this? Rebbing 11:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to ask you about his page patrols, and as you have mentioned above that his recent patrols are not problematic, there is nothing more to do. Marvellous Spider-Man 11:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marvellous Spider-Man: Well, I'm glad I could be of service.

For future reference, you can view an editor's patrols by using Special:Log and selecting "Patrol log" for the log type. For each blue-linked article, find the last edit by the patroller in the page history (subsequent edits may have fixed things); if the page appears insufficiently patrolled at that point, make note of the article and the problem. When you've assessed a few recent patrols and identified any recurring problems, leave the reviewer a note about it:

Hello! I noticed you recently patrolled Albert Einstein. It doesn't appear to me that the subject is notable, so I've requested the article be speedy deleted. The notability standard for people is specified at WP:BIO. Please check closely for notability in the articles you patrol: if they're not notable, you should see to it that they're deleted (via CSD, BLPPROD, PROD, or AFD), or, at minimum, tagged with {{notability}}.
It's very important that new page patrolling is done correctly. Please take some time to review the NPP checklist. The community expects that every issue covered in the list will be checked for during your patrols; do not mark a page as being patrolled unless you are able to follow the rubric completely and meticulously. Thank you!

I recommend using plain talk page messages for this instead of the "unreviewed" feature. If you get stuck, feel free to leave me a message about it or post on WP:NPP/N. Cheers! Rebbing 07:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me ... --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good! Thank you. I oppose the proposed change, but I wouldn't be too surprised if it passes. Either way, I'm glad to see old rules reexamined from time to time. Cheers! Rebbing 21:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am notifying people that responded at Template talk:Infobox person that it is now a formal !vote on whether to include or exclude parents and spouses in infoboxes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks a lot for replying to queries on the talk of Taylor Swift and running the page on the existing consensus. It would've been exhausting for me to both improve it and do what you are doing. – FrB.TG (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thank you very much! You've done a real bang-up job improving the article, and I'm happy to pitch in with fielding the regular stream of unproductive edits and questions when I can. Rebbing 05:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to draw your attention to a discussion between Dontreader and Duffbeerforme on the latter's talk page, under the title Could you please take a look at Ivana Raymonda van der Veen?. Does this not imply a COI in the raising of the AFD? This is all in the public domain and leaves questions in my mind about the reason for this AFD. It does not reflect well in the appearance of Wiki to the outside world. I must apologise posting here but I don't know what else to do. Elek58 (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elek58: Thank you for your note. Having been emphatic in my opposition to the previous AFD, I am well aware of the history involved, including Dontreader's romantic falling out with the subject and his canvassing of the current nominator. To be frank, I am not pleased with the situation—I think Duffbeerforme should have slapped a {{notability}} tag on the article and left it for someone else to nominate. However, as there is no reason to suspect that Duffbeerforme has a personal conflict with the subject or is acting on Dontreader's instructions, I cannot oppose. It's true that Duffbeerforme was made aware of this by Dontreader, but that's not sufficient for me to attribute Dontreader's conflict to him; it's simply too attenuated at this point, and our normal processes must prevail. Rebbing 05:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Jewel's father is proud ;) Safehaven86 (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yummo—thanks!

I'm used to seeing ridiculous vandalism on Wikipedia, but I'm honestly surprised anyone would accuse Jewel of hating men. Everything I've heard from and about her paints her as a highly compassionate person. Oh well. Rebbing 04:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

like it if you could attempt to avoid following me around Wikipedia please. Thanks. Pwolit iets (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glancing through your contributions, I see I am the second editor you have accused of harassment this week. I will refer you to his advice and admonish you to learn our content and editing guidelines and, until then, to be willing to learn from your mistakes. When you make ridiculous edits, like adding glory hole to {{toilets}}) (between flushometer and hand dryer) (diff), making a redlinked, Urban Dictionary-esque entry-slash-joke on a disambiguation page (diff), or using a source from 1973 to support claims about content on video-sharing websites (diff), you're going to be reverted; and when you mass move categories without discussion, split articles, pick fights with administrators, pursue a grudge at ANI with a bizarre and widely-mocked argument, and then try to modify policy to support that position, you're going to attract attention. Rebbing 23:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Detective Barnstar
		Thank you for your detective work concerning Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apantree Prayuttasenee and User:BuickCenturyDriver (blocked user), changing the IP to masquerade as a Buick Century, listed as BCD. Just the fact that you took the time to check into things is pretty cool. I have learned something and I love to do that. Now that I am aware of the "tricks" some people will pull, tainting the Wikipedia process, to actually further some unknown agenda, I will play detective also. Maybe this should be submitted to CU for a possible IP range block or something? Otr500 (talk) 01:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! I was pleased to help keep the peace.

I doubt a rangeblock would be feasible here: these are mobile wireless assignments, and he's shown he has access to other networks as well. I'm unclear on what the procedure is for stale IP socks, but I reported it anyway (SPI case) in case it helps. Thanks for the nudge. Rebbing 02:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you again. You had stated that this person was wanting to start editing again so at least this points to inappropriate activity that would be reason to deny this request. Regardless of anything coming from a reporting, I have learned to look closely at suspicious comments, certainly any that are nonsensical, and just "take a look around with the magnifying glass. Otr500 (talk) 03:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the "Common" Pronunciation of Brontë because the pronunciation of Brontë as "Bron-tay" is simpy incorrect. You may have noticed the "e" looks like this= ë those two dots above the e mean that the e is pronounced like in the name Chloë, so it's pronounced "Klowee" not "Klo." Why enshrine an incorrect pronunciation unless it is employed by the author? I have noticed that dictionaries have abdicated their responsbility to provide the correct pronunciation by providing the correct pronunciation as just another option. I don't think that WP has to follow that course, I mean this is an encyclopedia trying to abide by the standards of an encyclopedia isn't it? Last time I checked this wasn't a dictionary. also, you provided a link to WP:Truth I dn't see why. There is a correct way to pronounce a word, it's not an opinion. Unless you're suggeting that there is no empirical truth. Doesn't 2+2=4? or does 2+2=5? And if there is no empirical truth then what is the point of having a dictionary or an encycplopedia? Oh and "Bron-tay" is incorrect not "incorrect." So isn't library pronounced "library" not "libary"? Isn't "ask" pronounced as it appears ending in sk and rhyming with "task" or is it pronounced "axe" ike the tool and rhyming with "tax"?NapoleonX (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no fixed truth in human language. English was not handed down on stone tablets; it has evolved and continues to evolve in lexicon, grammar, spelling, pronunciation, and idiom. Dictionaries follow common usage; they do not dictate it, else they would be insisting on Shakespearean English.

This encyclopedia is not in the business of prescribing truth: that's why I linked the essay. Instead, we simply follow what respected sources say. The fact is that "Brontë" is commonly pronounced /ˈbrɒnteɪ/, not /ˈbrɒnti/. This is what our source says; and, in my own experience, that's how most people pronounce it. The article does justice to this fact by first reporting Miss Charlotte Brontë's preferred pronunciation and following up with the common pronunciation qualified as such. This is appropriate. Rebbing 00:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]