User talk:GreenC/2013-2015

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Walter O'Brien

I was wondering if you would have any objection to undoing the most recent changes by DaivdWestT to the Walter O'Brien page back to the 11th. I noticed you had made some changes. The things added by this person seem very.. promotional. The vast majority of the changes he has made have been to this page and in the same letter. byo (talk) 07:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the mention. Just following the sources that are reporting. See O'Brien talk page.DavidWestT (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cache

Nominated!

A Tshirt!
I thought that you deserved something a bit extra for all of the amazing work you've done for the project.
I've nominated you for a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation!
  • BTW, I nominated you for an award! I really do think that you deserve more recognition!
    talk) 17:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Tokyogirl79's talk page.
Message added 20:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply
]

Thank you!

--Lubna Rizvi 23:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubnarizvi (talk • contribs)

Category:Unpublished author or book awards

Category:Unpublished author or book awards, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Mike Selinker (talk) 06:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for fixing that.

By the time I thought about the other rationale it was already fixed, the only concern I had was the article creator changing delete rationales to keep.

talk) 17:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Yeah saw that sheesh. --
talk) 18:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]


Happy Holidays!

Happy Yuletides!

Merry Yuletides to you! (And a happy new year!)


2013

File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg Have an enjoyable New Year!
Hello Green Cardamom: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 19:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2013}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

The Rescue Barnstar

The Article Rescue Barnstar
For rescuing the deleted article International Resources for the Improvement of Sight. Congratulations! Fotaun (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The Barnstar of Recovery

The Barnstar of Recovery
For recreating the deleted article International Resources for the Improvement of Sight with references and content. Fotaun (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The Human Rights Barnstar

The Human Rights Barnstar
For aiding human rights by rescuing the article International Resources for the Improvement of Sight. Fotaun (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Dead Man's Chest [is] NOT A SHANTY

Hello there! Thanks for the correction. Anyway, the problem is not that Dead Man's Chest is "improperly" called a sea chanty, but the internal link itself. Disambiguation pages are mainly used for resolving conflicts in article titles (see: Help:Disambiguation). And, in this case, it does not improve readers understanding. Also, both the disambiguation page ("[...]a song sung by sailor's (not necessarily a shanty), as defined by the OED") and the Sea shanty page ([...]in recent, popular usage, the scope of its definition is sometimes expanded to admit a wider range of repertoire and characteristics, or to refer to a “maritime work song” in general") only serve to increase the confusion over the subject. IMHO, linking to Sea shanty, which is the nearest article on the subject, or eventually unlinking it are the best solutions to apply. However, do what you see fit for this case.
There is no need to reply to this post, and happy editing. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've linked it to
talk) 16:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Very well done, thank you! I would have liked to suggest you to add a new section about sea songs within that article (Sea shanty), but I didn't notice that a section about sea songs already exists, or I would have linked it to the proper section. Once again, thank you … and happy editing! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questia failed delivery notifications

Hi! We tried to send your your WP:Questia account access but your Wikiedia email was not enabled in Special:Preferences as requested by the signup application. To remedy this, could you please email me using the emailuser feature or directly at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Your code will be on the way shortly thereafter. Thanks! Ocaasi t | c 17:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved and ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

    • Then go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
    • Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
    • Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
    • You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (Your account is now active for 1 year!).
  • If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at [email protected] and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
  • Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
  • Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 18:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questia email failure: Will resend codes

Sorry for the disruption but apparently the email bot failed. We'll resend the codes this week. (note: If you were notified directly that your email preferences were not enabled, you still need to contact Ocaasi). Cheers, User:Ocaasi 21:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested correction to the record

Thanks for publishing and maintaining the page for Mohawk Guy, Bobak Ferdowsi. Just wanted to point out a error in the record. Bobak was not actually flight director during Curiosity's landing. He was seated in an activity lead position adjacent to Martin Greco, who was in fact the activity lead for the landing. I hesitate to make edits to the page myself since I was involved with the mission and therefore could be construed as having a conflict of interest. I respectfully request that you investigate and improve the accuracy of the article yourself. I recommend that you source the original NASA footage and photographs of the events rather than second hand reports, many of which are taken out of context. The cited photo captures everyone in their assigned position in the weeks prior to the landing.[1]--Shamu91 (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks, will fix that. I believe Ferdowsi is a "Systems Engineer" in that picture. Do you know why he is called flight director in these NASA sources? [1], [2], [3]. Thanks! --
talk) 23:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

You're asking the right questions. Entries made by NASAJPL on the Gigapan image are the authoritative source for responsibilities during the landing but don't address roles before and after the landing shift itself. Thanks! Shamu91 (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Explore A Room With a Mars View". NASA Jet Propusion Laboratory. Retrieved 25 January 2013.

Questia email success: Codes resent

Check your email. Enjoy! Ocaasi t | c 21:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, GreenC. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Russian Booker Prize/archive3.
Message added 19:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tomcat (7) 19:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I elaborated.--
Tomcat (7) 17:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

List of winners of the National Book Award

Hi. I revised

underconstruction}}; and consulted one of my mentors (User talk: Mirokado
, section Refs or Notes nested in [ref]s or {efn}s).

--P64 (talk) 20:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Prize

I hadn't quite realised until I revisited tonight that the page you "created" at the

Orange Prize is in fact almost a copy-and-paste of the text that was created in the lead of the list of winners, can you show me where you provide the attribution of this text in accordance with the terms of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I've never heard that before so it would be helpful if you provide a link to the rule that discusses this. --
talk) 18:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Look at the bottom of every page on WIkipedia when you edit it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you didn't get it, try reading
this. It works into and out of Wikipedia, but also within. You shouldn't be copy-and-pasting (and tweaking) other people's work without attribution. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
That may be so but I've never seen anyone give attribution for inter-wiki text, copying goes on all the time as articles are split and merged and so on. Do you have an example of someone doing this? Are there templates? --
talk) 19:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Most people don't copy-and-paste major parts of articles, tweak them a bit and claim them for themselves, as you've done. Fix it please, or delete it. Try
WP:COPYPASTE. And then tell me why we need virtually identical text in two articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I told you a long time ago when the split was done that there was a problem of duplicate text.[4] At the time I said:
Logically it would make sense to copy it all over the main article, add section breaks and a summary lead section, I'd do that if your agreeable, but I'm not sure what it would imply for this article since it might then look redundant. So I just kept the main article short for now, but at least the structure is in place for future additions by myself or others.
This still holds true - and you never replied to it BTW for whatever reason. What should happen is the entire 6 paragraphs should be copied over to the full article (well beyond a stub) and the list article should have a 1 or 2 paragraph lead section because that's all that is required for this list. To do this would require a feature review so it can be unfrozen from changes. --
talk) 19:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Where is this "freeze" you keep referring to? What policy or guideline are you referring to? Could you link me to it please? Also, you haven't quite answered the question why you need a main article which duplicates most of the prose and references verbatim and then has a blank section for linking out to the winners, when a simple single article could cover that, imagine how much easier that is for our readers! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The freeze? Take a look at your very own actions during last years discussion at the Orange Prize:
"It would also appear that we'll need to run it through WP:FLRC again if you wish to make radical changes, it's only fair on the community to see a highly revised version of a previously reviewed list, to determine if it still meets the featured list criteria."
You prevented an editor from making any major changes to the article without going through FLRC which can take weeks of time and effort and essentially most people will never do it (I didn't). In effect, the article is frozen by being a FL (though not frozen solid, it can be melted with some considerable effort). We should not be putting up roadblocks to editors this way on articles that we know ahead of time will be expanding in size and scope down the road. The awards articles deserve to be full articles because they are notable topics in their own right separate of the list. Now, what about merging the Orange Prize prose section into the main article and making the lead section of the list 1 or 2 paragraphs? --
talk) 20:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Not a freeze at all then, in reality an invitation for not just for the self-proclaimed expert to decide, but for the community consensus to be achieved? The lead section of the Orange Prize featured list meets our criteria for comprehensiveness. Reducing it just to link back to the copy-and-paste naff stub is utterly pointless. Are you sure you can't see that? Why would you want the readers of this website to have to visit a pathetic stub or c-class article when the three or four extra paragraphs could simply exist in the featured list which also has substantially higher quality control than the stubs/ c-class articles you're advocating? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your not reading what I wrote. Take a break and revisit sometime when you can respond without sarcasm. --
talk) 20:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
You need to take this up centrally, and I don't just mean an obscure talk page at MOS. Start an RFC so the community gets a chance to determine if the "pathetic copy-and-paste stub/worse list" or "comprehensive featured list" best serves our reader. Night. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cheeky you go back and edit your comments to make mine look stupid and incorrect. Low. Fin. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed my comment because that is what I meant to say, it's a typo, and so that it wouldn't cause unnecessary confusion for other readers, not to make you "look stupid". Just go ahead and change your comment now that I fixed mine, it's a trivial thing. --
talk) 22:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

WikiProject Cleanup

Hello, Green Cardamom.

You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion.

To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much

Thank you for your help with new article William O. Douglas Prize, much appreciated. — Cirt (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply with recommendation

Please see reply with recommendation. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion

At Wikipedia talk:The answer to life, the universe, and everything/Archive 1#Requested_move. --Lexein (talk) 06:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to
WikiProject Breakfast

Hello, Green Cardamom.

You are invited to join

WikiProject Breakfast, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of breakfast
-related topics.

To
join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]


A concern

A few qualities of

this comment
(and, potentially, the editor that left it) give me pause, specifically:

  • They are very well read on the current literature, particularly that of Wells
  • They discuss Wells the most, in particular how much his work "agrees" with and transcends all others
  • They are most concerned with adding a statistical and mathematical analysis with a "top-down" approach, the focus of Wells work
  • They wish to add said material "early on", similar to lede expansion/mutilation in this revision

...and maybe it's just me, but even they're writing style bears some resemblance to an editor with whom we've recently dealt with on that page. Which is why I ask: is it just me, or do you see it too? Mind you, I'm not about to go there and

Mysterious Whisper 01:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Yeah it is a deja vu. --
talk) 01:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]


Category:New England awards

Category:New England awards, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Internet Hall of Fame inductees

Category:Internet Hall of Fame inductees, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I see that you pertain to the subject. So consider, please, that besides
talk) 19:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Response to your review of "Published Research" on 15 April

Green Cardamom: This is my response to your review at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Risks_to_civilization,_humans,_and_planet_Earth . (Sorry for the delay.) Please read my revision at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TeddyLiu/sandbox

I'm following the format of the Roman Empire article to a considerable extent, but the analogy is not exact. Those historians were largely contradicting one another, but in our case the scholars largely agree on the big picture that humanity is in trouble due to proliferating hazards from new technology, and that the time scale is 100 years, maybe less. However, their ideas sometimes conflict regarding which hazards are important and what to do about them. TeddyLiu (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Green Cardamom: Can you respond to my on my sandbox? TeddyLiu (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Structurally it is like the Roman Empire article, but has problems for Wikipedia. It reads like an original essay of personal opinions. It is also unsourced. It would run into many complaints from other editors. Some examples from the first few paragraphs:

  • "This thick book".. is the writer's subjective opinion to label a book "thick" and not neutral - who called it "thick", is there a source for that? Also not appropriate to link to Amazon customer reviews, they are not considered reliable sources since anyone can write an Amazon review.
  • "..inventor of the Java computer language. [Joy] fears the sort of cybertechnology to which he has made major contributions." .. Joy fears the Java Computer Language?
  • "For this conviction Joy has been called a Neo-Luddite." By who?
  • "We have seen this happen already in the US when the Bush administration put restrictions on research with human embryos." .. who is "we" and that's a political hot button introducing POV into the article.

I could go on but there is a lot of issues for Wikipedia purposes. Suggest checking out

talk) 16:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Reference tool?

Hello! I noticed your recent changes on the Red Herring article. Are you using any reference tool? --Spannerjam 17:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Brunel University African Poetry Prize

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Brunel University African Poetry Prize, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.africanpoetryprize.org/.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not

talk) 07:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Response to your review of "Published Research" on 15 April

Green Cardamom: This is my response to your style points on my proposed revision of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Risks_to_civilization,_humans,_and_planet_Earth. Please read my edited revision at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TeddyLiu/sandbox Can you respond to me on my sandbox? TeddyLiu (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phineas Gage "Good Article" review

Having make ten or more edits to the article on Phineas Gage, or commented on its Talk in the last two years, perhaps you will be interested in the Good Article Review currently underway. I am particularly interested in gathering broader opinion on the following comment by the reviewer: "Many sentences are much too long for easy reading and to my mind overuse complicated constructions ... I will very strongly recommend a copy edit with ease of reading in mind, breaking up complex sentences and disentwining some of the flowery language." EEng (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

resource request

WP:RX.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GabrielF (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, I've emailed it to you. GabrielF (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Epic (genre) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Epic (genre) 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/Epic (genre) 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. Srnec (talk) 05:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK-Good Article Request for Comment

Reefer Madness

I added this film into List of films in the public domain in the United States. Don't worry; I used reliable non-primary sources. You can help me copyedit the addition and edit the film article. --George Ho (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was complicated. Believe the history of the film is right now. There is a lot of misinformation out there in the sources. --
talk) 06:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you

Thanks in helping to Keep the article

Sare_Jahan_Se_Achcha_(pencil_sketch). Appreciate. I would certainly improve the article with more references.Coolgama (talk) 03:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Krishnahari baral

Hi could we put the ProD instead of the AfD. I dont think there will be an objection. ThanksSupernovaeIA (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would object to a Prod since I think there is a possibility it would be kept in an AfD. --
talk) 00:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

August 2013

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary with every edit. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks!

Yes, really.

See also Wikipedia:Edit summary legend/Quick reference. Many of my edit summaries are abbreviated: for example, one of my favorite edit summaries is the simple "+."

Cheers!

Unforgettableid (talk) 05:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Paul article expansion

Well done. – S. Rich (talk) 04:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio at Feudal Monarchy

I've been clearing up more copyvio from this/these editor(s). See also

talk) 14:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

And I think the best thing to do with
talk) 14:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
And
talk) 16:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks very much for all your help. As Feudal Monarchy was all copyvio, I've rolled back to the redirect. However, I think a section on the subject might be appropriate in
talk) 07:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I know a little something about Feudalism and the concept is new to me. No one in 10+ years of Wikipedia thought to consider it before and we have some knowledgeable people. I'd prefer to sit on it for now and keep it in mind. My sense it's a neologism occasionally used to label certain monarch's as Feudal after the period of Feudalism has traditionally thought to have ended. Feudalism is a politicized concept often abused, not an easy topic to get right. Thanks for clearing that page and agree with the redirect. What a mess overall. --
talk) 14:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Talkback

Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 15:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply
]

talk) 15:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Sources

Just picked up your message on my talk page. Thanks for taking the time to explain more about sources. TomSlade123 (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good points

Hello, GreenC. You have new messages at MichaelQSchmidt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, GreenC. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative press (U.S. political left).
Message added 07:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Kimball

The AFD has been re-opened and the article is back for continued work. Remove those youtube links and tighten the thing up and it may well survive. 06:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Please share your opinion on Samuel Westrop

Hi. I happened to see your vote on an article that was nominated for deletion, just one section below another entry which I'm currently opposing. So I randomly decided to kindly ask you and the other two users - only if you want of course - to take a quick look this article. Then, I'd really appreciate it if you could vote either for(delete) or against(keep) its deletion proposal, because I'm convinced that more views are needed there and think yours can be trusted. Thanks in advance, Shalom11111 (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for changing the license on the image of George Zimmerman. Copy Editor (talk) 01:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Book Articles.

Hmmm... I seem to be getting mixed messages about the current state of Wikipedia's future. On one hand editors are encouraged to submit articles and urge others to do so as well. Then I get messages stating some articles are not worthy of their hard drive space. I didn't realize up until now that some books, especially those published by small companies, don't make the grade.

To answer your question I am in no way realated to or have any financial involvement with Mr. Lansdale. I've only met him once about 4 years ago. I live in the far north suburbs of Chicago near the Wisconsin border and he lives in a small city in East Texas. I would be less than honest if I didn't state, and I think it's pretty obvious, I am a huge fan of his work. I'm also a huge fan of many writers and grew up reading Stephen King. That being stated if you feel some of these limited edition books, no matter how wonderful, shouldn't all have their own articles, I'll stop. PKDASD (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


If your interest has been piqued, try reading Mucho Mojo by Joe Lansdale. It's the book that hooked me.PKDASD (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gatestone-deletion

Hi. Concerning Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatestone Institute: By reacting on Hawkswin, who didn't sign his his message, and by entering the word keep by an anonymous user, it appears that your vote for delete was nullified by Hawkswin's vote, which, by lack of a signature, is counted as your vote. See here. Maybe you can look what can be done by it. If some lazy administrator just want to count the votes, the article will stay for all the wrong reasons. And I don't want that to happen. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 07:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, GreenC. You have new messages at Dkriegls's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Oxford Brookes notability/references

I've added some secondary references to the Oxford Brookes Students' Union article, which should prove its notability. I agree that TLE is a primary source, however as a student magazine it represents a complete week-by-week record of the history of the university, such knowledge could not be found elsewhere in any secondary sources.

DYK for Kenneth A. Bollen

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Nomination of
Eve de Leon Allen
for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Eve de Leon Allen 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/Eve de Leon Allen 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. —Darkwind (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Algard Javier Gaston page

I have solved problems with links. What do you think? Tanjamilo (talk) 06:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Green Cardamom, I'm a little confused as to why you made this edit. What convinced you the book is notable?

talk) 22:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Notability is all about
talk) 02:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Sockpuppet

Green Cardamom, Juan has accused us of being sockpuppets. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ColonelHenry#Comments_by_other_users DavidinNJ (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had a feeling that Juan and Blander were the same person or working together. Blander had never edited anything on the Nathaniel Raymond article or talk page, and then submitted it for Afd using the exact same arguments that Juan had used. DavidinNJ (talk)

Speedying

Actually, there are instances where something has been deleted at an open AfD per the G4 and/or G5 criteria. There is no need to encourage pov-pushers, socks, meats and PR types, after all. - Sitush (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review

There's a deletion review for the Nathaniel Raymond article. Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_October_17 DavidinNJ (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help with an article?

Hey, just thought I'd ask for some help with what looks like it'll be a fairly weighty article subject. It's for

(｡◕‿◕｡) 06:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Hi, the sources are excellent, scholarly in-depth, better than most book articles. The plot could be expanded but leave that for someone who just finished. I checked the commercial databases and found very little surprisingly. Never heard of the author/book but appears to be significant, historical fiction can be really great or really boring. Will add it to my watchlist see what happens. Good luck with school and flu (no relation). --
talk) 01:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Rashmi Singh (author)

She is this one http://www.amarujala.com/news/states/haryana/faridabad/Faridabad-40132-139/ Feel free to add this, if you want. Another from Amar Ujala has been already added. I undid your other edit as it was about some other Rashmi Singh with the same father's name. I compared the articles of Page 3 and others. The photograph was also not matching Ananyaprasad (talk) 07:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hounding

If you have a problem with me or with

WP:ANI, please. Making random suggestions at an AfD will achieve nothing. FWIW, the article was almost a complete copy/paste and for that reason has to be deleted - we cannot leave such blatant copyright violations even in the history, so a rewrite was not feasible. Of course, anyone is welcome to recreate provided that they act within our policies/guidelines. - Sitush (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anagha_Deshpande

Kathryn Hamm

The article now should be able to survive AfD if listed there again. However, a Wikipedian looking at a variety of sources and concluding and posting "In 2013 ... Capturing Love: The Art of Lesbian and Gay Wedding Photography ... was reviewed by (insert numerous sources)" is original research by the Wikipedian, not a summary of what the sources are saying. The original research is why the article received all the negative reactions. That ""In 2013" information in the article should be revised to instead summarize what the cited sources say about the topic. There's no reason to keep a lightning rod in the article and editing it out of the article will significantly lower resistance to the article. -- Jreferee (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings

Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list
. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter


Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

need to contact via email

Hi Green Cardamom. I need to contact you via email. Which email address can I use? Thank you in advance 71.249.192.144 (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Email: [email protected] .. when you send an email let me know as I won't normally monitor it, this is a temporary email created for our conversation, thanks. Also this email account expires after 3 weeks of inactivity. --
talk) 20:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Rashmi Singh (author)

Will this help? http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-K13w8myFseo/UnRyw6bd_RI/AAAAAAAADlA/styLI0JY2NU/s1600/TOI+3.jpg Ananyaprasad (talk) 04:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, GreenC. You have new messages at Coffee's talk page.
Message added 07:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

— Coffee // have a cup // essay // 07:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Want to delete my account.

  • Hello. Just want to know how can I delete my account as I am not able to work- continuously tracked by 5-6 editors of Wikipedia. They do not have any other work but to track my contributions, immediately land there and put it for deletion or speedy deletion. I also want to complain before deleting my account and state my reason for deleting my account. The admin wl chk and can see themselves how they are hounding me. Ananyaprasad (talk) 03:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. If there are any articles you want help editing or finding sources, send me the name. I am talking to Coffee about why he closed Delete instead of Keep but it is not going well. It will probably need more book reviews or a major award. You can't delete an account on Wikipedia, but you can delete the userpage by putting {{db-user}} at the top of
talk) 06:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Source

Am i missing something, are these photos of the same person. [5] [6]. They certainly don't to me and if its a photo of the journalist or whatever its a bit odd. I also removed the CNN blog its highly questionable given links that its been subjected to proper editorial control.Blethering Scot 21:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re CNN the blog post contains links we block, it also is a blog posting whilst even by a quality journalist doesn't read or look like its been subject to full editorial control. We don't need it anyway as it adds nothing the other sources don't, so theres no point wasting time on it. I would also note I'm not questioning the reliability of book reviews, but don't feel theres much in them that adds much to notability or to the article until its expanded or am i questioning that time can be used and i have actually tidied the article up a bit as well, but its a stub thats over line sourced at the minute per amount of sentences. Blethering Scot 22:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking to understand your article rejection

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Steven_Eisenberg

I understand what you're saying about local San Diego news not being given much weight, but on top of the Today Show and Huffington Post, I would argue that TechCrunch should have as much weight as Huffington Post as a source.

References 7-10 are for pioneering medical research in the field of colon cancer and were published in national medical journals. They are available online through PubMed. What criteria are used for determining the weight of medical research and sources?

Also, last week the American Society of Clinical Oncology featured Dr. Eisenberg in an article. Would this national article be given any weight? http://connection.asco.org/Magazine/Article/ID/3676/Songs-of-the-Soul.aspx

Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joycejanet (talk • contribs) 17:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Techcrunch is a trivial mention, there is no information in it that I could call "significant" (quantity or quality). The asco.org article is not independent coverage, since he is a member of ASCO. Likewise with 7-10, they are papers published by Eisenberg not about, they are not independent sources. You've said the papers are "pioneering medical research" -- that's highly significant -- can that be verified somewhere in a source that is independent of Eisenberg? Typically that is done through recognition by peers with Awards and Prizes or biographical articles or books. --
talk) 18:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Hello! There are several external, reliable, third-party sources for the entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Ra

Frank Ra

Can you please remove the "pending review" tag? Not sure why one editor first decided to change the name of the entry (until another editor switched it back to the correct, original entry), then he marked the article for deletion and he is not really paying attention to all the external sources. He searched for "Frank Ra" and commented the subject of the page is not the only one there, but the editor did not notice the other entries are not about Frank Ra but people called Frank RaMON etc. Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.180.157.184 (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the reason the pending review tag is on there is because the IP (who I strongly suspect is the author) keeps removing the AFD notice. Also when first created it was created as Frank ra, I made the mistake when moving it of hitting an extra R. After this I had Acroterian help fix that and after a search that didn't show clear notability I nominated for AFD.
talk) 02:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Arno Tausch

Dear Green Cardamom, Hi I noticed in your contribtuion to the Afd for that you have longish list of reviews of some of the books. Several of them are to a publication Reference & Research Book News. Do you know anything about this publication? It seems to me, and this is only an impression without expert knowledge, that it might be an on demand reviewing service where they provide a review of all the books sent to them (i.e. it could be "A vanity reviewer"). Do you know about them at all? I am asking because I am bit worried about the article. I have voted keep in a previous afd and think we should probably keep a trimmed down version of the page but it is very problematic as it stands. Also looking at Google scholar - one of his most cited works is "Towards a Socio-Liberal Theory of World Development." This is reported as being cited 45 times http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Towards+a+Socio-Liberal+Theory+of+World+Development.%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= but when you look at the citations most (by far) seem to be self citations. There are though at least a couple of reviews of it in your list in "normal" journals - Politcal Studies and Journal of Econ Lit - but how long are these? The PS one is only about a paragraph in a longer review (a page) on a series of books. I have not accessed the JEL one yet - but it might easily be just a listing. Any thoughts? Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 13:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

R&RBN is not vanity, it's a product of Book News )(not to be confused with
talk) 15:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Dutch

Hi Green Cardamom

Thank you for reviewing the Cloudmachine article. It was however not declined on notability issues on the Dutch wikipedia. It just was written bad. Cloudmachine has more fans outsie of Holland than inside, nobody made the page in the Netherlands. I do think the band is notable enough given all the connections.

cheers

Berkum --Berkum (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Berkum (talk • contribs) 03:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I don't tend to talk to people on here, but your edits on the George Zimmerman interest provoked my interest. Shiningroad (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --
talk) 18:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I would like to mention something to you

You said to ask here, on your user page. Nice big book cover image! I couldn't get past much beyond The Metamorphosis. It always bothered me, how that apple got stuck and embedded in Gregor Samsa's post-transformation carapace. I wish I could have pried it out for him, at least done that much, you know?

You can email me with the contact details. I set up email here in the usual way. Or I could you leave you a message on Pastebin, or have a chat on open Twitter, or in the comment section of one of my innumerable unvisited blogs, just not here on your talk page or mine! It isn't anything urgent, not at all. It isn't anything bad. You seem very astute and sensible. Thank you for your time! --FeralOink (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for your help Camimack (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Burghardt

Hi, you had raised those points and sources during the deletion discussions and it was rebutted by at least one other participant. Since their interpretation of policies involved are within valid range to be considered, I cannot disregard their opinion. Taking their argument into account, there were in my opinion a clear consensus for deletion. Of course, I'm not infallible, so if you still believe my interpretation of the consensus to be incorrect, you are welcome to raise this at Wikipedia:Deletion review for further outside opinion. Thank you -- KTC (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

afc procedure

I saw your note at

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael L.J. Apuzzo. The way it works, is that you first have to submit it, then wait a few minutes for the bot to catch up, and then accept it. (The system defaults to listing you as the submitter, but you can change that) . However, it needs some work--it's a partial rewrite of a properly rejected G11, and I have marked it as under review and I am cleaning it up a little, & will then accept it. The first thing I did was move the named professorship to the first sentence, because, according to WP:PROF, that's the simplest proof of notability, AfC is weird. There is no excuse for the complications, which discourage rather than encourage proper reviews. I have had so much resistance in trying to get it improved that Ive given up, and just work around it. DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Susan_RoAne_%282nd_nomination%29

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Susan_RoAne_(2nd_nomination). Benboy00 (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid e/c

Give me another 15-20 minutes to tweak the most glaring problems with this article then you can come back and tag away. But let me take a whack at it first. Montanabw(talk) 01:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm done. I restored the in-universe tag because you are right about that, even with what edits I could do without access to the books, but I had different reasons and noted them. The notability tag is a bit too snarky, given the AfD discussion (which is accessible on the talk page for anyone else who cares), and I think it suitable to drop that stick. I put a fair use rationale on the Bradbury image, so that's now cleaned up. It's probably as good as can be done, I hope Smerus (who I presume has the books) can do a bit more with it now. Montanabw(talk) 01:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Vedontakal Vrop

Hi. I wanted to let you know that I've requested a

deletion review of the outcome from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vedontakal Vrop. The review request has been posted at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 December 2. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 11:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

ASL Module dependencies

Hello, Firstly, thank you for producing this - it is a great help to a beginner (such as myself). However, I was wondering if you would be able to update it? There are new modules out from MMP and one upcomming (Decision at Elst). If not I could try and formulate a new diagram base on what you have provided? Thanks again - a great resource. John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red mcl (talk • contribs) 20:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make the chart but worked with someone who did to make a version suitable for Wikipedia. I think the only new module is a combo of older ones (GungHo and Bushido) so dependencies didn't change, and DaE is for Starter Kit, module is standalone with no dependencies. I'm going to hold off asking for updates unless there are significant changes. --
talk) 20:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks. There are also now additional action packs available from MMP which are not shown. So long as it will be updated in the future time goes by - that would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red mcl (talk • contribs) 20:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Public Domain cartoons

I sorry about my editing but i'm trying to improve the the "List of animated films in the public domain in the United States" page, The Superman cartoons are not the only public domain cartoons you know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.215.107 (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Public Domain cartoons

If you don't belive that these cartoons are not in the public domain, here some lists. http://looney.goldenagecartoons.com/DVDvideo/PD http://lantz.goldenagecartoons.com/publicdomain.html http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PublicDomainAnimation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.215.107 (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of

The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Thread at WP:AN

There is a thread concerning you at

WP:AN#Please help. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Palanca Awards 2011 and 2011 Palanca Awards

Dear Green Cardamom: The above abandoned Afc draft was declined because it lacked sources. I added some, but now it can't be added to the encyclopedia because there is a stub article which you created. The Afc article is much more extensive. Would you object if thie Afc version replaced the one your created? It appears to predate it, and it looks as though yours was intended as a placeholder. Yours could become a redirect if you like. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes sure the AfC version is much better. How about Accept the AfC, redirect mine to it, then rename the AfC to
GreenC 16:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Okay, I'm working on it. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Susan RoAne

Hey Green Cardamom, just FYI, the consensus at Talk:Susan_RoAne#Unencyclopedic_Content (between me, User:Dream_Focus, and User:Agricola44) was to remove the extensive description of works we that considered more trivial than her publications in Harpers, Success, and Inc. Please pick up the discussion there, before re-instating the extra content. I'm not against it if consensus changes. Sancho 06:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see you're arguing that this is materially different than what we talked about in that discussion. Sancho 06:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that discussion was about that particular paragraph that listed the magazines she was published in. This is new content entirely that concerns her philosophy and ideas. The article is incomplete without putting her into proper historical context as a feminist and part of the women's movement, in particular see
GreenC 07:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not going to try to not participate in this debate, but please don't assume the others are attempting to censor this information. Assume good faith, and that they legitimately just disagree with about about how trivial this information is. Might be worth to start a discussion at the talk page. It's hard to justify yourself to people that disagree with you in edit summaries. Sancho 07:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:The Story Of Vernon And Irene Castle - The Yama Yama Man.ogv

Thanks for uploading File:The Story Of Vernon And Irene Castle - The Yama Yama Man.ogv. 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

Stefan2 (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Talkback

Hello, GreenC. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
Message added 10:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Stefan2 (talk) 10:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

The Rescue Barnstar

The Article Rescue Barnstar
For outstanding endurance, peace-keeping, and patience on Mothers in Space AFD. Fotaun (talk) 15:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The WikiProject Barnstar
For contributions to so many articles and for editing in the year 2013. Fotaun (talk) 15:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year Green Cardamom!

Happy New Year!
Hello Green Cardamom:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 04:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Send New Year cheer by adding {{
subst:Happy New Year 2014
}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Adding links to Recorded Books

Hey, I saw that you manually added a bunch of links to the new article on Recorded Books. Did you realize that the tool http://edwardbetts.com/find_link/Recorded_Books will help you find more of those links, without manually having to go through search results? I find that it greatly reduces the amount of time it takes, and I miss less links. Sadads (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right I've been doing it manually for 10 years now and this brings tears to my eyes. Thank you, this is amazing. --
GreenC 20:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah, links to it used to be on some of the Orphaned article templates, but now that we have made that template, its less and less visible. I love linking pages, its a great low-energy way to contribute, that adds a lot of value, Sadads (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to George Zimmerman may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • My art work allows me to reflect, providing a therapeutic outlet and allows me to remain indoors :-)".<ref name=waxman/>

Thanks,

talk) 16:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Your sig is broken

"Modern" isn't a valid attribute for <font face="">, it is making your sig come out to be just two dashes "--". Tarc (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John David Ebert

Hi, could you take a look at my comments at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_David_Ebert_(2nd_nomination) and see if they might lead you to reconsider your weak delete !vote? Thanks! — goethean 18:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity award

Hi. I just want to be sure you noticed this. You may want to look here for more information about someone named "Jeff" and USA Book News, although this may be a complete coincidence. - tucoxn\talk 23:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "libel" to report what sources say and it's not a
C 00:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Understood. I'm not paying close attention but be careful of
WP:3RR with your reverting -- I doubt the other editor is aware of that policy. I also contacted WMF's legal department per WP:Don't overlook legal threats. - tucoxn\talk 03:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Well the latest edit wasn't a revert, it re-framed it, and so far the user hasn't complained. --
C 04:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

February 2014

Hello, I'm

John Schlossberg may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page
.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Pioneer to Receive 2013 John F. Kennedy New Frontier Awards |publisher=[John F. Kennedy Library]] |author= |date=November 11, 2013 |accessdate=February 13, 2014}}</ref>

Thanks,

talk) 19:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Library holdings

Dear GreenC,

Thanks for catching me on being fast and loose at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gregory_Orfalea. Indeed Library holdings themselves are not codified as notable, similarly to h-indexes. But while a high h-index (or low) is a good proxy for "something actually notable will be found" for scientists, high library holdings have seemed a very good proxy for something notable in the humanities and non-quantitative social sciences. I can't think of an AfD I've participated in where an author with library holdings above 400 has been deleted (it may even be as low as 250 that I've ever seen deleted, but I'm almost 100% confident at 400). As you noted, it probably means that there are reviews out there -- indeed the only way that 400 libraries know to buy a book is either that it's from an extremely important press (I would assert, almost notable in itself) or that it has been reviewed somewhere that librarians read. I was sloppy in my presentation at AfD, but one of the forces I am most pushing against is the notion held by some who participate in AfDs often that h-indexes mean anything in the humanities. I've been on a lot of hiring and promotion cases in musicology and never heard the words h-index or citation count emerge in any discussion. Thanks for listening. Maybe we can continue the discussion on WP:PROF? Best, -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I may add some observations: (1) There are journals in the humanities and humanities scholars do publish in them, so h-index can be relevant to humanities AfDs. Empirically, it is admittedly the exception and I think an old saying is apropos here: absence of evidence (of high h-index) is not necessarily evidence of absence (of notability) in the humanities. So, I don't think the a blanket view that h-index is never relevant in the humanities makes any sense. (2) Book holdings are not (yet) codified in
WP:RS – such do neither WP nor their subjects a service. One of the forces I am most pushing against is the notion held by some who participate in AfDs often is that these are OK. They're not – especially for BLPs. In the end, I think it's fair to say that while many AfDs are "easy" i.e. obvious notability based on one or more of these aspects, many others are not and require thoughtful review/analysis. Having at times been at odds, I've enjoyed debating both of you in the past because you're willing to do the homework. All the best, Agricola44 (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC).[reply
]

Wikiproject Report

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on the Article Rescue Squadron for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day! buffbills7701 13:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shocking age.

Hi. I'm no longer an active user. While checking out some old issues for old times sake, I saw that a certain user has been harassing you. You asked him his age, and I want to say that I think that was a 100% understandable question which had crossed my mind when I had crossed his path. That user acts like a 23 year old know it all with no maturity or basic manners. His actual age (if you believe him) is shocking. I can't believe anyone that age would make the comments he does to other people in a community of supposedly educated adults. Stand your ground. You are in the right. Regards. 68.199.99.92 (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note and support. --
C 20:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Help with Ideas

Thanks for your Keep vote at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stacy_Blackman. I still don't understand why it was deleted, but was wondering if you could help provide some feedback or edits to make it pass muster. I place an archive at User:Artfog/Stacy_Blackman. Thanks —Artfog (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Artfrog. I think people see "marketing professional" and they assume that Blackman wrote the article or someone associate with Blackman is abusing Wikipedia as a marketing channel and so they feel they must fight back and stop the spam or whatever they think it is. So in a case like this the sources have to be impeccable and undeniable evidence of notability. Poor quality sources will actually hurt as it makes it look like an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes and further anger people. So the first thing is to go through all the sources and just delete whatever isn't a strong source, to deny any complaints. See what people wrote in the AfD on this as I believe some sources were singled out. Next is to look for better sources, have you looked in databases like Gale, NewsBank, ProQuest, Ebsco? I have not looked into it closely so I don't know how good the sourcing potential is. It will hurt to re-add the article into main space until or unless the article has been significantly improved from the prior version so take time before re-adding. --
C 19:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Great feedback. I'll do that. Thanks —Artfog (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
Thanks for providing additional sources on the talk pages of the Apo (drink) and Rum-Bar Rum articles, and for all of your work to improve the encyclopedia. NorthAmerica1000 05:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A brownie for you!

For sourcing the Institute of World Affairs. I guessed there'd be something there :) Neonchameleon (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editor award

For edits well done!
For your editing prowess, you deserve a big bowl of
Brown Windsor soup, but this is as close as I could get to this mythical delight. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Wikilegal on US sound files.

Thank you for telling me about the Wikilegal response. It is very inconclusive though I dare say that is the only kind of response they could have made given the way the law is right now. There is a potential problem with non-free use of sound files on WP. It has not escaped some people's attention that federal fair use law is a prerequisite for WP hosting "non-free" files. With no federal protection for old records, there is not (may not be) federal fair use exemption either.

BTW, on my way here I was distracted by your user page and I'm glad to have seen it before someone sends it to MFD! What a fascinating paper about oligarchies. It's not as simple as whether or not someone is an administrator. Many admins have little influence. And a few non-admins are very influential indeed, for good or for ill. But I'll admit I find it usefult to use the CSS script that highlights admins names so I know who I am dealing with! Thincat (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really thing it was inconclusive? It seemed conclusive in the last line: Although pre-1972 sound recordings are under the domain of state copyright law, some of these works may still be posted to Commons if they have been freely licensed by the owner. (bold added) This is saying ignore the state copyright law, but only if there is evidence the work is freely licensed by the owner. Which in practice most everything pre-72 is an orphan work - the copyright holders long dead, unknown or inaccessible - so no way to get a free license. I suspect this finding will be the death of most of the copyrighted recordings hosted on Commons (if someone decides to act on it).
Glad you liked the page. You make good points. It's like the debate over government vs private sector, both sides have power. If someone wants to MFD all the better, these are things that had been posted to Signpost that I thought were interesting for Wikipedia and society in general. Do you mind if I ask what CSS script your referring to? That would be good to have. --
C 01:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I'll look again later at the Wikilegal reply. The script I use is User:Amalthea/userhighlighter.js invoked using
importScript('User:Amalthea/userhighlighter.js');
in User:Thincat/common.js (not CSS, I was confused). I've used it successfully for years but I see a comment has been added suggesting User:Theopolisme/Scripts/adminhighlighter.js instead. Thincat (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, I should have said "indecisive" rather that "inconclusive". They could have said that because it is infeasible to take into account the laws of all US states, it is in specified circumstances acceptable to WMF for people to upload old sound files at their own risk with warnings to users and reusers. Images would be taken down on DMCA request. But they didn't say that. Effectively we already have just that situation for non-US images. Someone (even a US citizen in the US) can break UK law by uploading a third-country image that Commons will willingly host and which might lead to an officer of WMF being sued in the UK courts. Watch out Jimbo! In the other direction, the US have been known to seek extradition of UK people (Richard O'Dwyer) accused of breaking US copyright law even when the infringing material was not hosted in the US. Thincat (talk) 09:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the userscript that's really useful. It will certainly continue to be a source of debate. The US copyright system for recorded sounds is truly broken even the LoC is trying to get laws changed so maybe if we hang on long enough things will take care. --
C 15:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]


A barnstar for you!

Gerald Shields leading the masses to improve Wikimedia one cosmetically fashionable photograph at a time. North Korean Fashion Watch Barnstar
style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;"

Gerald Shields, founder of the North Korean Fashion Watch, awards you the North Korean Fashion Watch Barnstar for your continuing efforts to add reliable and poignant discussions about North Korean topics, such as Ri Sol-ju. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The return of Europa Universalis

Off to bed now, but this can't be a coincidence surely?[8]

talk) 22:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Noureddin, Son of Iran

I noticed that you are cooperating to improve and keep the article "Noureddin, Son of Iran". Your presence makes me more enthusiastic to keep it. Thank You very much.Mhhossein (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It probably has a good chance of being Kept. --
C 23:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Dolores Cannon deleted Wikipedia page

Author and hypnotherapist Dolores Cannon's page was deleted in October of 2013 and the person who deleted it, Mark Arsten, no longer has a talk page. Would you please consider reinstating the page after looking at the following supporting articles? Dolores Cannon is an established author; her 18th book, "The Search for Sacred Knowledge," will be published this summer. She is the founder of Ozark Mountain Publishing, which publishes books written by dozens of other authors. Dolores Cannon has been included in Watkins Books (London) list of The 100 Most Spiritually Influential Living People for three years in a row and has been ranked higher in each successive year (in 2014 she was ranked #57, in 2013 she was ranked #67 and in 2012 she was ranked #95). All the links are provided below. Also below is a recent article about Dolores Cannon in the influential online publication Collective Evolution, which has an enormous social media presence. Dolores Cannon is a relevant author, hypnotherapist and speaker who teaches her Quantum Healing Hypnosis Technique (QHHT) throughout the world and maintains a searchable global database of her certified practitioners. Thank you for your help.

http://www.watkinsbooks.com/review/watkins-spiritual-100-list-for-2014

http://www.watkinsbooks.com/review/watkins-spiritual-100-list-2013

http://www.watkinsbooks.com/review/watkins-spiritual-100-list-2012

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/02/19/we-are-living-in-the-most-important-time-in-the-history-of-the-universe-dolores-cannon-discusses-our-current-paradigm/

http://www.dolorescannon.com/find-practitioner

http://www.dolorescannon.com/about — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjesquire (talk • contribs) 19:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

dispute resolution

You are mentioned as an involved party at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Solar_Roadways. Dream Focus 07:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

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 find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC in Dave Brat

As someone who previously participated in the article Dave Brat, I am letting you know a RfC has been opened on an issue regarding that article. I am placing this notice on the Talk pages of everyone previously commenting on this topic who has not already commented in the RfC. BlueSalix (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cry of the Kalahari, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Yorker. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That Which That Orphan Saw

Hey! Please consider reviewing That Which That Orphan Saw. Thanks Mhhossein (talk) 08:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And babies font

I will take your word for it that the source (the Israel book) says that the font was sourced from the NYT. This is interesting if true. Would it be possible to quote the exact passage where the source says that? 1969 was before PCs, so they couldn't just use Times New Roman. The typeface is definitely Times, but some of the letters look distressed, as if printed on rough newspaper stock. Look at the differences between the capital "A"s and the two "e"s. The one on the top is sharp, the one on the bottom looks like 18th century printing. How did they do that? Did they photocopy the actual letters in the newspaper, or did they use some other technique? -- Margin1522 (talk) 02:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Tomicki possible deletion

Dear GreenC:

Thank you for your interest in my page.

My wish to delete my page was simply frustration talking and not at all what I wish. I would just like an accurate article about me posted without the controversy or criticism.

And I would be happy to provide more facts, backup or information to clarify any issue. I, too, seek an honest and properly researched page.

Sincerely, William Tomicki

[email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.125.71 (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are doing a hell of a good job arguing the case. I've written multiple responses that are obviously too hard core for this group. So I'm just backing off and letting you handle it with some things I'm not good at, politics and tact. If you need my comment or contribution in support, please write. Trackinfo (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amazonian level views

Thanks for your comment at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-07-16/Traffic report, I replied with some thoughts.--Milowent • hasspoken 05:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Victor Herman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gorky. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Kenton Grua