User talk:Innisfree987/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

2017

Hi! Thank you for contributing the Feel Train and, um, me articles. I was wondering if you were planning to make a page for the other half of Feel Train, Courtney Stanton. I can provide secondary media sources, documentaries they've starred in, etc, if you're lacking in citations. Dariusk (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Dariusk, that'd be great! I have a draft in progress and have collected some sources so far but more would be really helpful--particularly if on work outside of Feel Train. Forgive me if I'm repeating things you already know (you seem like you know your way around the place a bit!) but the general rule is that if someone's primarily known for one specific project or event, then WP puts all the info on them under the header of that topic, but if there are multiple projects with good secondary source coverage, then WP makes a standalone entry. (Just for an example of a different entry I worked on: there was a question about whether the Meredith Graves entry should be merged with her band's page, but she had other projects that were really unrelated to the band, so she has a separate biography entry.) So coverage on other projects would be great for a standalone entry, but even if not, the Feel Train page has a lot of room for expansion to describe Stanton's (and your) work--what's up there now is really just to get the entry started and hopefully invite more contributions (and hey look, it worked!)

But while I've got you here, apologies for the error on your birth year--that came from the Globe story mentioning your age but it should have said 1983 or 1984, or been left off altogether, so that's what I've done for now, seemed like the easiest solution. Sorry about that!

Thanks so much for your help on all! Innisfree987 (talk) 04:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Innisfree987, Thank you for your thoughtful and helpful comments for Draft:Sherry Huss. I added three references from neutral publications about Maker Faire events in which Huss was quoted. Can you please take a look and let me know if this addresses your comments? If so, I will resubmit. Again, thank you! Streamingtech (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi

WP:WHYN

useful in terms of explaining the reasons behind Wikipedia's requirements for a "significant" amount of secondary sourcing in order to start an entry.

I hope that's clarifying! Innisfree987 (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

This helps a lot- Thank you so much for your knowledge and welcoming attitude! I'll add a founding section to the main page and then see if other material exists to justify a standalone page. Thanks for your work on Wikipedia! Streamingtech (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh my pleasure--happy to have you join us Streamingtech! Feel free to reach out if there's anything else I can help with. Happy editing! Innisfree987 (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in

notable

and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Not satisfying our simplest policies and there's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to
  Draft:Jessica O. Matthews
  and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 22:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at

Draft:Jessica O. Matthews. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk

23:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Sundownllc (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:John P. Fishwick, Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I resubmitted a page for review, after completing a great deal of editing, but have not heard anything on my resubmission. The article on about John P. Fishwick, Jr. I'm hoping I've addressed all of your concerns regarding Mr. Fishwick's Wiki "worthiness". His work as a Federal Prosecutor, appointed by President Obama, should be sufficient to warrant an article. Please let me know your thoughts. Hoping we can get the article up right away. Thanks, Rob.

Sundownllc (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sundownllc, thanks for your message. Hoping I can clear up a few things.

One thing to know is that WP is entirely staffed by volunteers so turnaround can take time, just depending on how many people are volunteering on a given project--for instance, as you can see mentioned on your draft, right now the Articles for Creation backlog is 800 pages! The best way to get things to move faster is to get more involved in WP. We'd love your help!

Then there are a couple links listed at the AfC notice on your draft that I'd suggest you make sure to read, one being the notability link, which I hope will offer some clarity on how topics qualify for an entry in the encyclopedia (it's rather different from what one might expect). The other is "Referencing for beginners" which explains how to format your references properly, which is worth sorting out while your draft is awaiting review. Hope that's helpful! Happy editing-- Innisfree987 (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:COI. Thanks for your adherence to the site's policies! Innisfree987 (talk

) 15:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Innisfree987 - Just checking on the status of the article I'd submitted for John P. Fishwick, Jr? I realize that there was a heavy workload (over 800 pages for review), but it has been over two weeks since I originally submitted the article and almost a week since your last comment. Hoping we can get the page published very soon. Thank for your time and attention to this matter. Also, just an FYI, I am not being paid to submit the page. I am submitted this page as a favor to a friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sundownllc (talk • contribs) 19:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

WP:COI link closely, as creating a page "as a favor to a friend", even if not for pay, could constitute a conflict of interest that needs to be disclosed. Innisfree987 (talk

) 20:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Please don't add to the head category - they should go to one over 40+ national cats (always American in your case it seems), plus the Women one if appropriate, plus perhaps one of the speciality ones. Johnbod (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Johnbod, thanks for your message. Can you advise on how to proceed if nationality isn't clear? While lately I've been creating entries for people currently employed at US universities, that doesn't imply they're American and citizenship information often isn't readily available for these kinds of bios. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

If you know they are born somewhere else, add that too. Normally it will be clear from even a brief CV if they have spent all their life in the US, & if so, assume they are American. Actual proof of citizenship is hard to prove even for very famous people (look at Obama) as sources normally never mention it. Johnbod (talk) 12:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Oh for sure, if there's indication in a reliable source (as there has always been for Obama--and actually for wiki-notable bios outside of NACADEMIC, I've found it quite common to have reporting on the subject's birth place and where else they've lived), I'll include it. What I've been running up against is that many people in art history have done their education and/or worked in more than one country; plus CVs for those employed in the US typically only describe post-bac education/employment, and of course US universities have quite a lot of people who spent their first 18 years elsewhere and went to the states for higher education. I feel a responsibility our readers to leave out information altogether rather than put in something unconfirmed, so please forgive me if there are any further additions to the header category--I'll take care only to do so if I really can't pin down where they're from. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing much difficulty in determining either nationality or gender here for example. Johnbod (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Innisfree987. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Just letting you know that the backlog is still growing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		Excellent work and very useful of you submitting four editors at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled. Schwede66 08:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Schwede66, and thanks for your comments on the nominations--it was really useful to see your process for evaluating, I'll incorporate into my due diligence when collecting a next batch of noms! Innisfree987 (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindness in this revert. The "Drumpf" changes must have been because of a chrome extension that does it automatically (I think it makes news stories funnier) and I never thought that it would affect my wikiediting. I'll try to find a secondary source for the Sigma Chi information. Again, thank you for assuming the best about me. Wikipedia needs people like you! —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 05:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Ha, Goodtimber, that explains it! I almost emailed you wondering if your account had possibly been hacked or used by someone else who had access to your computer, because it did seemed rather different from the rest of your edit history! I figured I'd wait and see if it kept happening, but browser extension makes perfect sense. And you're not the first person to have this issue, actually; you could try editing WP in a different browser, if you'd rather not turn the extension off in Chrome. Meanwhile thanks so much for your message and kind words. Happy editing! Innisfree987 (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow project participants. Not sure how many users are still active as normal Wikipedia editors but felt the need to attempt to get a gauge on who can be called on for help with articles falling under the umbrella of the African diaspora project. According to the project's article table there are over six thousand articles related to the African diaspora; there's not a hundred at FA/GA grade and there's over twelve hundred that are unassessed. With Wikipedia being one of the major information reference points in the world today we should consider this unacceptable. Much work needs to be done on the rating of the importance of articles as well. With more communication amongst participants and a dedication to addressing the articles on the to-do list I believe we can make this WikiProject one of the most well organized and thorough on the site. If you are interested in collaborative work with some of your fellow project members, have certain expertise on any particular subjects, ideals on/about the WikiProject, etc. simply drop your name under the "Project revision" section I've created on the project's talk page and state your intentions and main points of interest in our WikiProject and we can attempt to move forward from there. Hoping to hear from everyone soon! WikiGuy86 (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Innisfree987. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of

Since I have seen this multiple times now: Please take extra time to consider whether speedy deletion is the right way to go when it comes to very old articles. In favor of any article that existed for seven, eight or even more years a presumption in favor of keeping the article exists. As such, please only tag them if they should clearly be deleted without any discussion and use

WP:AFD for the rest. Regards SoWhy

12:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance SoWhy. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

You gave me a permission; Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled. What exactly is this? Mpen320 (talk) 1:18, 4 June 2017 (CST)

Hi Mpen320! So autopatrol is an unusual user right in a couple ways, the first being it doesn't change much for the person who has it. Instead, it's meant to help out the New Page Reviewers by identifying new page creators whose pages can forego reviewer feedback; granting those reviewers "autopatrol" means their future creations won't be added to the queue of new pages to check over, which currently has a backlog over 20,000 pages (!)

The other unusual thing about the Autopatrol perm is that you don't have to nominate yourself; others can nominate you. So I and other folks at NPR have been looking for candidates (in hopes of making a dent in that enormous backlog), and suggesting them at Requests for Permission--you're one of the folks I suggested. An admin will look over my request probably sometime this week and send you a note if they grant it.

Of course if you'd prefer to stay in the queue to have a second set of eyes on your new pages, you're entirely welcome to--you can just leave a note at RfP saying so, or reply here and I can withdraw the nomination. In any case, thanks for all your good work! Innisfree987 (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

That's actually really cool. I doubt I'm a super contributor to the backlog when I'm not unemployed, but every little bit counts. Happy to be nominated.Mpen320 (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2017 (CST)

Ah indeed, looks like Sadads has taken care of it and you're now autopatrolled! Thanks again for your great contributions, Mpen320--indeed, every little bit helps! Happy editing! Innisfree987 (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

how can I prove everything on the page I edited is right because every time someone edits something you delete it but it's true facts

Hi RakiaWriter, thanks so much for your message, I'd happy to let you know a bit more about how to make edits so they won't be reverted.

The first thing to do is check out the links on the message I left you on your talk page. That will give you a lot of information about Wikipedia policies on editing.

I think you and I have only interacted on the

here. You can also find a longer explanation of the reason for this rule here

.

The other item is that Wikipedia has really strict rules about copyright, and two of the pictures you added didn't have a license. You'll need to make sure to get the artist's permission (the photographer in the case of the football picture, and whoever owns the rights to the music video) in order to use those on Wikipedia. You can get more assistance on how to do this over the Commons help center.

I hope that's helpful in terms of getting the hang of how to contribute! Welcome again and happy editing! Innisfree987 (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I have

Thank you! I looked through the history, I don't know how how I missed that. Thanks for catching. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding this: but I didn't PROD it; I just tagged it. If it had been eligible for PROD, I would have PRODded it. Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not aware that Template:BLP unsourced is only for articles that meet BLPPROD or that the presence of an external link makes an article unsuitable for the tag. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rivertorch, thanks for your message. I mention BLPPROD as one instance of a place where consensus has been established that the presence of an external link does mean an entry isn't unsourced--and after all, a source can be a source (if it supports info in the entry!) whether not it's formatted as a footnote. But just to explain my interest in this: I've been working on the 2000+ page backlog of BLPs tagged as unsourced. It's ostensibly the category that should turn up BLPPROD-eligible pages (which as a process does require good bit of research--you have to check that no version of the entry has ever had any sources, good or bad, and that it's never been through any deletion process--so not everyone who might tag something as unsourced would necessarily bother with the BLPPROD), but so many pages are tagged as unsourced when they do have one or two or ten sources that BLPPROD candidates are a needle in a haystack. And it's not even particularly useful for finding BLPs that have zero sources but could viably be reffed up--I've only see one of those and I probably looked at 50 of these today. In practice, the category's more or less indistinguishable from the "this BLP needs additional sources" category. So yeah, I've been working on trying to identify which are genuinely unsourced, if any--in total candor, I would love to be able to report back to the BLPPROD talk page: "Look it's actually nearly zero that meet the BLPPROD criteria, let's just nuke this exceedingly headache-inducing process" (I can't recommend it because look at the rabbithole it's thrown me down!, but if you're feeling masochistic, check out the discussions wrangling with this policy just this year: 1, 2, 3, 4...) So, highly appreciated if BLPs are tagged as unsourced if truly no sources, and needing additional/better sources if they have a source/sources. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I see. Well, you're certainly working on one of the more thankless tasks at Wikipedia, so props for that. I get what you're saying and where you're coming from. Regarding the specific article at issue here, it frequently gets all manner of content added to it that I have no way to evaluate because I know nothing about the topic, there are no references, and the sole external link doesn't help. There are more than a few articles on my watchlist with similar problems. I had some vague idea of AfDing it in a few weeks if the tag didn't result in either someone else nominating it or else adding a decent source or two. It seems to me that either we need a separate template specifically for unsourced BLP articles that don't meet PROD (this was discussed years ago at

Template talk:BLP unsourced but apparently nothing came of it) or the template's documentation should be changed to deprecate its use for non-proddable articles. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER

06:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Rivertorch: Agreed about need for tag clarifications; as I was writing back to you, I thought to myself, it's almost like we need separate "needs more sources" and "no REALLY, it seriously needs more sources" options! The clean-up tags are really a bit of a mess overall. The following doesn't apply to your example obviously, but a significant portion of the entries currently tagged as "unsourced" have even just one or two external links that, thanks to certain SNGs, actually do suffice to source, say, sports bio stubs; the issue is only that these sources aren't formatted as footnotes, for a which a different tag does exist but for whatever reason it's not the one selected. Meanwhile for the purpose of BLPPROD, if I had my druthers I wouldn't even ask that people check to make sure the entry is BLPPROD-eligible (given how many previous versions that might require reading through, it seems like a lot to ask), but just that the current version has no sources in any form: that would, rough estimate, take the whole category from ~2700 entries down to ~150, a far more feasible number to tackle in terms of the extra legwork to see which satisfy BLPPROD by never having had a source, never having been through PROD/AfD...but like I say, I admit to hoping that may soon be moot anyhow, if BLPPROD were to be eliminated. All in all, tag reform is probably more than I can to take on and still retain my sanity; I'll likely just trundle along in the backlog for now and see if I can at least get a bead on the BLPPROD thing, which would change what we need from the tags...

Meanwhile, for Christina Broccolini, it may be a bit cynical but I'm doubtful it's going to get fixed with either the unsourced or more sources tags (those who've participated so far clearly aren't adding reliable sources, and both the unsourced and the more sources categories are so seriously backlogged, I count it as quite unlikely a good Samaritan will come pick it up). If you're up for doing the BEFORE work for AfD, I think you shouldn't feel obliged to wait. Just my two cents! Innisfree987 (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Most recently, Senatorial districts in Virginia. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey thank you Robert McClenon, that's very kind! I was so surprised to find the list was incomplete--although in retrospect I suppose it's not entirely surprising there's less eagerness to write entries for the seats than for their current occupants! Innisfree987 (talk) 04:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

You don't run into

the American politics case restrictions with regard to the seats themselves. Robert McClenon (talk

) 11:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I am little confused about a tag you recently added. Not sure what non free content you are referring to. Would you please elaborate? As I am confused, I didnt remove the tag, but I added a notability tag. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure thing usernamekiran: in that entry, along with several others created by the same editor (1, 2, 3) it seems that the editor noted the source, but not which portions of the text were the editor paraphrasing using their own words versus material copy-pasted from the source. (I first noticed this problem using Earwig's Copyvio Detector.) As you can see, I mentioned this problem as part of the copy-editing tag I left, but I also flagged for improper use of non-free content to be sure that serious issue wouldn't be overlooked. I have also left two messages (1, 2) with the user asking they address this recurrent and fairly serious problem, though unfortunately so far they have simply deleted my first message and some of the tags. I figure I'd give it a few more days since I just left the second message and meanwhile at least one of the entries has been fixed by a different editor, so perhaps things will still get rectified. In any case, I hope that explains the issue! Innisfree987 (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Yup. Now I totally understand. Actually i knew it all along, but i confused it with non free/special case images lol. Thanks a lot. :) —usernamekiran(talk) 18:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Totally understandable usernamekiran--I left two tags (and a message with the user) because indeed it was hard to pick one that adequately conveyed the issue. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, apparently the user has a habit of deleting messages without responding them. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

True, usernamekiran. As couple people have addressed it with them this week, hopefully it'll all get sorted out! Innisfree987 (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

lets hope so. :) See you around. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for taking the time to review so many of my articles. talk ) 01:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, my pleasure--thank you

Bennv3771 for such strong, thorough work! I especially enjoyed learning about the books you'd created entries for. Have for some new additions to my reading list now! Innisfree987 (talk

) 02:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey thanks for your helpful edits on my contributions! Just started doing wikipedia editing, so always looking for guidance, especially when in comes to incorporating the correct formatting and templates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaitlinmcnabb (talk • contribs) 19:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi

"no original research" policy, which basically means all analysis (e.g. on genres) needs to come from reliable secondary sources rather than being the analysis of a given Wikipedia editor--since WP is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", editors may or may not be experts in the field, aren't fact-checked by an expert, etc., so insisting research and analysis added can be verified

in a reliable source is our way of making the encyclopedia as reliable as possible.

Meanwhile, on a simpler note, when you leave a note on a talk page, putting four tildas (~) in a row will automatically generate your signature (if you try it and then hit "Show preview" saving changes, you'll see what I mean). Hope these thoughts are helpful--do feel free to reach out if there are any questions I can help with! Happy editing-- Innisfree987 (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I am curious regarding how you found/came across this article. I am not sure about the notability, but I did some re-arrangement of words in the first line of the article. It is about a post/designation in Department of Commerce. From the official site, I learned is just one single designation with two distinct charges: CFO, and Assistant Secretary for Administration. The entire article needs a little copy-edit here-n-there. I can do it after getting a nice sleep. I also saw you unreviewed few more articles. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

So, I'm not a specialist in government titles (either at the notability or the naming level), but it caught my eye because at least for things like "Presidency" we would usually use the name of the country (or the organization for that matter) in the name of the entry, unless it was supposed to be a generic article about all presidencies. So I'm guessing here we need something like United States CFO/etc. But then like I say, I'm not sure if the rank is high enough to merit a standalone entry anyhow, hence I thought it'd be helpful to have another reviewer look. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Cullen328, for your wonderful service to the project. You are an example to us all! Innisfree987 (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your generous comment you've made on my article creation He's Sure the Boy I Love. :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey, thank you for the great work MrLinkinPark333! Innisfree987 (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Just a little note WP:FILEUPLOADWIZARD very helpful for adding covers to book articles. It is okay to use jpgs from the web, no need to take a photo of the book. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk ) 20:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey, would you mind also unchecking my new article Tom Paradise so that it, too, can be reviewed by others? Thanks a bunch! KDS4444 (talk) 07:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do this one, but if you can't work out a different on-going solution, would you mind please sending new submissions through AfC in the future? That seems fairest in terms of making sure eyes get on the article without creating extra steps for those of us volunteering our time. Thanks KDS4444! Innisfree987 (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely— sorry for the inconvenience, shouldn't need to ask here again, thanks much! KDS4444 (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Innisfree! I have been asked to voluntarily resign my rights as a new page patroller. Much as I would prefer to stay, can you assist me with this? I have never resigned a right before and do not know anything at all about the process. Please advise, if you can. Thanks! It's been fun! KDS4444 (talk) 07:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh goodness.

Ok. Well the short answer to your question, KDS4444, is that if that's really what you want to do, you only need ping any admin and they'll remove the flag.

However. I have to say my view is that the request made of you was premature at best and had (as was at least belatedly acknowledged; better late than never) no clear basis in policy; in fact, there's now a conversation going on at NPP about the terms for situations like yours precisely because of the absence of a policy for it. If you check out the discussion, you'll see I and others made the same suggestion there as I did on our earlier thread, about the possibility of a declared alt account (which is, for instance, how WMF employees distinguish between their paid work for the Foundation and their volunteer work on the encyclopedia.) If you just prefer not to go that route, nor wait around to see what other solution consensus might land on in that discussion (to which you're very welcome to weigh in, if that prospect doesn't seem too dreadful at this point), I understand. I'd just be very sorry to see any long-standing contributor drummed out because one individual (who is not an admin nor a coordinator of the project in question) told you you were out of line in a way consensus really hasn't established. But again, I get it if it's just not worth the hassle to you. I'll leave it up to you, but I'd suggest BU_Rob13 as an admin who can give you balanced, thoughtful advice on how to handle this (I trust he'll give you not only his opinion but also his assessment of the overall atmosphere if not yet precisely a concensus), and if in the end you decide to resign the right, he can take care of that for you too.

Sorry for what you're going through. This is the second time lately I've seen someone take a lot of flack precisely because they did follow the rules about disclosing paid editing and it's frustrating to me as both unfair to the editor in question and bad for the encyclopedia. Suspect it will only drive good-faith editors away and bad-faith ones underground, which is the opposite of what we need (and the reason paid editing is allowed at all). Innisfree987 (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

You give me hope. Thank you for that. It's funny you should mention drumming out: I once did dissertation research on a military school, and witnessed the utter humiliation that is a "drumming out of the corps." The parallels have felt similar enough for me to have felt reminded of that moment, 20 years later. And here you mention the same term. The coincidence is not random.

I have been editing in good faith for just over nine years. I have learned all about COI editing, and so was careful to disclose mine when the time came. Now I feel like a pariah for having followed the rules with such diligence. I have emptied my user page of all info except the mandatory paid edit declarations. It looks dead now. I guess that reflects how I feel. Some other editor might console me with, "Hey, at least you didn't get your account indefinitely blocked for breaking the rules!" That's super. I get to retain an account that is now permanently tainted with my honesty, an account that should be accorded no user rights and from which every edit I now make I am expected (not required, no) to include a paid editor announcement, just to make sure everyone knows what kind of a criminal I am. I wish I didn't care. Nine years, though... It's hard not to.

Going after declared paid editors is probably not in the project's best interest. We are easy targets... Too easy. We declare with the expectation that, having done so, we will continue to be treated with respect— because we were honest, because being honest like this is hard to do. Instead, well... Ever watch hunters shoot ducks in a pond? (I have— it makes my stomach turn; but it happens all the time, stupid ducks).

I have no desire to resign my New Page Patroller right. As I look back over my own edit history, there are a LOT of pages there that I have patrolled! (the official count is nearly 2,000, but I know at least half of those are automated). There is a lot of garbage I have tried to weed out, some of it more obvious than others. But if even one other editor questions my intentions there, how can I stay? I am not even certain how being a new page patroller conflicts with having made some paid edits, I truly don't. But I am not the one questioning my role/ intentions.

<sigh> I guess I need to sit on this for another day or so. Will consider running myself past BU_Rob13. He's also involved in OTRS, I believe (another right I expect to be asked to resign soon). Thanks again for your encouragement. Please tell them to hold The Rogue's March for another day or two, yes?  :-) KDS4444 ^(talk) [Note: This user has admitted participating in paid editing.] 13:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Wow that is quite a coincidence! Yes, I'd urge taking a few days, a week or two even, before turning up for a Rogue's March. Give it a little time to let the sting air out--I've only been around a year and a half and I would not take it well if someone impugned my motives, so I can't imagine how it feels after almost a decade of service to the project. If it helps at all, maybe remind yourself everyone here is a fallible human, so no one person's comments should be taken as Wikilaw or the final word on your standing on the project--everybody can (and will) make mistakes.

If I may make one (I know, unsolicited!) suggestion. I'd recommend revising your signature to take out the "admitted to" bit. I do think there can be some good sense in mentioning paid editing for transparency, and I think I've seen an example of how another editor has handled that part, so I'll try to track that down for you, but IFAIK you haven't done anything wrong, under either WMF TOU or en-wiki policy, so there's no admission of guilt. Just declared paid editing exactly as policy prescribes. So you could maybe have, say, a more neutrally-worded link that shows a list of pages where you've made declared paid edits, rather than saying you "admitted" to it as if perhaps only after you were accused--whereas in fact you volunteered the info up front. Just an idea--and I will try to find the other example for you. Hang in there! Innisfree987 (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• To be clear, I made a request, and said that I would be very happy to discuss. I did not demand anything. There are thorny issues around someone who does paid editing doing sensitive things like NPP. How to handle them, is the question. I do think it is unwise to do both, and that is what I said. There are people here who would have demanded that KDS resign. That is not what I did, and was very much not my intention. I do apologize if it looks that way to anybody. Jytdog (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: To me the important bit is that it is an open question, and so the initial message about leaving NPP read to me like it came on pretty strong and a bit out ahead of consensus, to inform someone their actions are "very unwise" and ask for them to resign a flag, especially without the disclaimer that this springs from your personal stance rather than settled policy. But I appreciate your subsequent clarifications on these fronts and I hope KDS will take them to heart; I'd be very sorry to see them feel their contributions are being impugned without, AFAICT, any indication they've actually done anything wrong. Particularly when they've kept up that unblemished record (no blocks, no ANI threads, etc.) over almost a decade of service to the project. I know none of us wants the project to discourage long-standing good contributors. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Yes I was clear in giving my thoughts and I understand that can come across as aggressive. Not my intention, for sure. Like many conflict of interest issues, the issues are structural not personal. That is a hard thing for people to wrap their heads around... Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Anyhoo... I'm out. No need to worry about it further. (Anyway, where's my barnstar??). KDS4444 ^(talk) [Note: This user is a paid editor— trust, but verify.] 06:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Aha. Well. I don't have much to add beyond what I've already said but I do hope we'll continue to see you around other parts of the project, KDS4444. There is always more to do! Innisfree987 (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, could you please specify what exactly is unclear in my article Sisak Fortress. Thanks. --Silverije (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Silverije, and my apologies, I probably used the wrong tag there (so I was the one being unclear!) So what I had in mind is that in giving a list of external links rather than footnotes in the text ("inline citations"), it's unclear what information in the article comes from which source. So I would have done better to use the "lacks inline citations" tag. Still, technically footnotes are not required in most cases, so you could remove the this cleanup tag without any further action, although I often work the unsourced articles backlog and I see a lot of entries like this one tagged as "unsourced", just because they have a list of external links rather than footnotes or a "references" section, so you may have someone else raise a similar question. It also is just helpful to readers to know which information they can find at which link. But it's up to you--it's already a very nice article, thanks for your work! Happy editing-- Innisfree987 (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Innisfree, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! ansh666 20:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your work, Ansh666, and for volunteering for the mop! Innisfree987 (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Innisfree987,
I appreciate your looking over the page for architect Jon Condoret. However, I saw that you removed the list of projects that Jon Condoret did as an architect with the reasoning that these people and info are low-profile, and unsourced, respectively. I believe that the list should be recovered because the goal of the list was not to bring attention to the people who lived and are living in the houses, but to show the projects that Jon Condoret completed during his career as an architect, and to bring attention to Jon Condoret's legacy as an architect specializing as a modernist architect in North Carolina. Also, this project list was received from North Carolina Modernist Houses, which has given us permission to use the information, and North Carolina Modernist Houses got the information from various sources, including books like North Carolina 1795-1975 by M. Ruth Little, another source was his daughter, also an architect, Arielle Schechter. There were a couple of other sources that are listed on ncmodernist.org/condoret.htm. I just wanted you to know that I think the project list should be recovered, for the reasons I just listed.

Thank you,
George M Smart (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi George M Smart and thank you for your message. I appreciate your contributions to the encyclopedia and want to make you aware of a few policies that may affect them, to help you avoid these or any other difficulties in the future.

The first concern is, when you say, "...has given us permission", there's an issue with the matter of who "us" is--please be advised that Wikipedia has a policy against

conflict of interest

to be sure you are complying with those policies.

Next, please note that "bringing attention to [someone's] legacy" isn't an acceptable use of the encyclopedia; please see the policy

WP:BLP

.

Relatedly, I think you'll find it helpful to read through the WP:No original research policy, which will help explain, for instance, why sources like information obtained directly from a subject's daughter do not satisfy Wikipedia's WP:Verifiability policy. All of this will help you figure out which parts of that list, if any, you have adequate sourcing to add back into the entry and which needs to be omitted. I realize this is a lot to read, but I am hopeful it will help guide you in contributing to the encyclopedia, a task isn't always so straight-forward as one might assume.

Happy editing! Innisfree987 (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting that addition to Women in the military, which was made by someone who seems to be part of a course which requires students to modify Wikipedia articles, a practice that has increasingly become a headache since most of the additions made by these students tend to be badly written, unbalanced and politicized. I'm not sure whether we can put the brakes on this policy or not: it would be better if these courses merely taught students HOW to write additions to Wikipedia rather than having them actually do it. GBRV (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh man, thanks so much for this message, GBRV: I feel exactly the same way about the need for the WikiEd program to make sure students learn how to make WP contributions, to the extent I'm reaching out to the WikiEd liaison for the course about it. (Not that this course is an isolated example.) Please feel free to join that conversation if you like; just started discussion here. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The same material was just inserted again (for the third time) with only minor changes, so I reverted it again. I can try to take part in any discussion as time permits, but I don't have much free time. I mostly just periodically monitor stuff on my watchlist, but rarely edit. GBRV (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thankyou for your participation in the challenge series or/and contests. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on women during this month for your region or wherever please sign up in the participants section. The articles done may also count towards the ongoing challenge. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Help would also be appreciated in drawing up the lists of missing articles. If you think of any missing articles please add them to the sub lists by continent at Missing articles. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Just as a note, I received a REFUND request for Kennedy (musician), which you had successfully PROD'd back in July. Primefac (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks so much for letting me know Primefac--I'll keep an eye on the page. Hoping the editor can establish notability with better sourcing than I was able to find. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, I of course respect any editor's preferences for their talk page so I won't post this to yours, but I've just realized we've had, I believe, a legitimate miscommunication that I'd like to clear up. When I wrote "Concurring with above", I meant the various editors who'd left advice upthread on your talk page about engaging KDS. So when you referred to a 10-year sock puppet, I thought you meant KDS, as that's all I was referring to in the first place, not any other preceding posts. Apologies for the inclarity and resulting miscommunication; I had thought the substance of my comment indicated what I was talking about, but I see now my header didn't make sufficiently clear which of the above I meant and thus invited confusion. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah ha! I am striking your disinvitation. Thank you for clarifying. Jytdog (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

A year ago ...

entries for journalists
... you were recipient no. 1535 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda Arendt! So kind. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)