User talk:Neelix/Archive 16

I really appreciate your participation, your responsiveness, and your helpful comments.

Thanks again, — Cirt (talk) 00:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thanks very much for all of your help with successfully getting Featured Article quality. I really appreciate the assistance in getting this article about freedom of speech to FA. — Cirt (talk ) 23:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you've been moving a lot of writers. Just a suggestion - please make sure that anyone you move is also in a non-gendered sub-category of Category:American writers (e.g. as an essayist, journalist, poet, etc.). --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Obi-Wan,

Thank you for taking an interest in the categorization within this area of Wikipedia. Certainly, my hope would be that all of the articles would eventually be fully categorized. My current goal is to fully populate Category:American male writers and Category:American women writers.

Neelix (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok - but the problem is, it was this sort of move that got a lot of nasty articles written about us. Per

WP:EGRS, if you do put someone in a gendered category, you also must ensure that they are in a non-gendered parent or sibling category as well. Otherwise it looks like ghettoization. Finally, tackling the writers category is quite tricky, as the diffusion rules for writers in general is unclear - which means in some cases, people should *also* remain in the parent for now, even if they are in gendered categories. ..--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk

) 16:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me to

our guideline on categorization by ethnicity, gender, religion, and sexuality; I did not know that we had such a guideline. Both Category:American male writers and Category:American women writers

have subcategories, so neither is "the final rung in a category tree" as prohibited by the guideline. The reason I took on this categorization task is because of the nasty articles you mention; they seemed to suggest that women were being rejected from the main "American writers" category and the men were not. In order to counter this bias, I created the male counterpart category and have spent a considerable number of hours populating it. Why do you say that some articles should remain in the parent category as well as in the subcategory? I thought that was never a valid option.

Neelix (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Another aspect of that categorization guideline is that no-one should ever *only* be in a category defined by their gender, unless the whole tree is split at that level - as they have attempted to do with actors/actresses, and sports people. In writing, it's much less clear - and the American male writers cat is up for deletion anyway, so you may want to hold off populating that until you see what consensus is. I'd suggest working on de-ghettoizing instead - you could start with

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_bias_task_force#List_of_categories_that_need_to_be_de-ghettoized. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk

) 16:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Neelix (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be a great help to all if you would re-add all the categories you removed, re the above EGRS discussion. Cheers.

talk

) 21:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that would help anything. If the CfD results in a decision to merge, all of my category changes will be reverted automatically. If the decision is not to merge, then my changes will stand. Either way, this issue will sort itself out. Neelix (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Neelix, in ref. to viken berberian article, you added 'american male writers' sub category, ok, but i have a question regarding the expanded citations for this article. they are quite extensive and thorough with recent additions and questions addressed. also, the formatting no longer uses bare urls. the existing urls have been free of link rot for the past 15 months and fully cited with author names, dates now. shouldn't the 'add and expand citation" and "reformat" templates at the top now be reviewed and removed? could you review this entry as i have been working on it since its creation more than a year ago. thank you for your wonderful work as always. Fountainheads (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

		Spirit Barnstar!
		Got to recommend you... for your excellent hat at Spirit in the Sky. Warden (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominic McDevitt-Parks 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. MZMcBride (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey David. While I am surprised and and honored that you would write that article, I actually agree with MZMcBride. I don't feel I am notable, and nearly all of the news coverage I have been tied to is more relevant to

Wikipedians in Residence or National Archives and Records Administration rather than biographical in nature. I would rather the content were merged elsewhere. Dominic·t

16:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I redirected the article to

Wikipedian in Residence. This is the pre-merge version. Feel free to move over any text you think might be relevant/appropriate to merge in. --MZMcBride (talk

) 19:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Neelix (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!
	Hi Neelix! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the SarahStierch (talk ) 17:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Neelix, hope all is well. Monday's TFL has become unstable as a result of an editor placing a few tags on it and now taking it to

This is against consensus. Gender, race, and ethnicity categories do not diffuse articles out of their parent categories. Have you not been reading the newspapers for the last month? Just ask King of Categories, Mr. Obi-Wan Kenobi if you don't believe me.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

hehe. Thanks, um, I guess. I did mention this above. Alf, can you show me an edit you disagreed with, and I will weigh in? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I accidentally reverted Alf's edit; I apologized on his/her talk page. Where was that consensus reached? The only discussion I know of is this one, and it ended two days ago with a decision to keep the subcategories as is. Is there another discussion that took place at which it was decided to delete the gender subcategories? Neelix (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

ah ok. No, the gender subcats (esp male ones) were kept as no-consensus. However, before further diffusing Category:American writers, I'd suggest waiting - we are likely to have an RFC on the whole writers tree more generally. We are close to a solution on American novelists, but we haven't tackled the writers yet, and for now for the uninitiated it "looks" like you're removing writers (even if Maggie for example was already in Bloggers, which is a subcat of writers). Thus, I'd suggest holding off on further diffusion and wait for the broader RFC on how this should go. If you do continue diffusing, I'd make sure to put every writer in the gender category (if known), the ethnicity category if needed, the century category, the state category, and the genre category if known. However, there are odd-cases - such as writers who write in multiple genres, and we don't have clear guidance on how these are to be treated, thus I personally would suggest holding off until we have a broader RFC on categorization of writers.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. I'd be grateful if you'd let me know when that RfC occurs. Neelix (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing. Also, FWIW, one of the wikipedia developers is developing an extension to do category intersects, which will make gendered categories a thing of the past, so I think your time might be better spent doing other sorts of categorization - we're very close now, I hope, to an awesome solution for category intersection. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

That would be great. I hope that developer is successful; I think pretty much everyone would get what they want if such an extension were put in place. Neelix (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me there may be a problem with BLP1E here--you might want to reconsider. DGG ( talk ) 16:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

yes, I think it would be a good idea to add further sources, and to break it into paragraphs for the different aspects of his career. DGG ( talk ) 17:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Delegitimisation 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/Delegitimisation 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. —Ryulong (琉竜) 05:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

See User talk:In ictu oculi#Partially disambiguated titles. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing Buying Sex is Not a Sport, Neelix.

Unfortunately Bruno Russell has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

Good article, additions needed will tag

To reply, leave a comment on Bruno Russell's talk page.

There's so many violations of guidelines in both cases, I see no point in the free-for-all of an AfD.....your sources are about trivia and are merely event listings and celeb-trivia (such as it is). Your misconduct in removing tags on articles you have created is now the core issue. See Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#I_don.27t_know_which_board_to_take_this_to.....admin_misconduct_re_removal_of_notability_tags.Skookum1 (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, just a pedantic note: I noticed that you used the "cite journal" template here, which is intended for citing articles in academic journals. For newspaper articles, the "cite news" template is more appropriate. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Randy,

Thanks for letting me know. I'll try to use that template in the future when citing newspapers.

Neelix (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I stopped by to do a source review for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2012 tour of She Has a Name/archive3 and was pleasantly surprised to see it got promoted, congratulations! — Cirt (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

See closure. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

See a discussion at

Wikipedia talk:DAB#Partially disambiguated page names in which the new prose is reviewed further. A couple more comments were also made at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Close requested after the closure. EdJohnston (talk

) 04:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! And also, I do as well, hopefully they'll get there soon! — Cirt (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a note to let the main editors of

The

Full article...

)

Thanks for the notice. While I agree that the new article is not promotional, I don't think that this church is notable per

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Five Stones Church 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/Five Stones Church 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. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Heritage Grill 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/Heritage Grill 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. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

...on getting

Thanks, Khazar! Your support of human-rights-related articles is much appreciated. Neelix (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places of worship in Greater Vancouver 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. Mkdw^talk 07:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Talk:When God Writes Your Love Story/GA1

GA on Hold, please see recommendations at Talk:When God Writes Your Love Story/GA1.

NOTE: Please respond, below the entire GA Review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Keep me posted,

— Cirt (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Review passed, congratulations! — Cirt (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• File:Leslie Ludy.jpg

I'd suggest contacting the user that uploaded the image and asking them to follow Commons:OTRS process and email them that way. — Cirt (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Commented at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/When God Writes Your Love Story/archive1.

Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

images
Thank you for quality articles on underrepresented topics, such as

2012 tour of She Has a Name, for uploading images and illustrating Featured articles, for gnomish tasks, and for your trust in collaborative interdisciplinary free access for everyone, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian

(29 June 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. Speedy deletion only pertains to the specific version of the article that exists at that specific time, and doesn't mean that nobody's ever allowed to come along with a new, properly written and properly sourced version — heck, even if there'd been a full-on AFD you'd still in most cases be allowed to recreate an article again if better sources came available — so if you've got solid sources, then by all means go right ahead. Bearcat (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you seem to be using Wikipedia as a promotional venue for this minor play. I intend to merge

Hello, Neelix. You have new messages at Roscelese's talk page.
Message added 18:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Neelix. I just noticed that back in December you proposed redirecting a slew of goat breed articles to the List of goat breeds. I've undone these redirects for the most part, for the following reasons...

1. As you can see via examples already pointed out by List of sheep breeds, List of horse breeds, List of cattle breeds, List of chicken breeds, List of duck breeds, List of goose breeds, and others, the general consensus is that if a breed can be proven to exist by a reputable source, it is inherently notable as a distinct form of living thing, just like a species.
2. Many of these stubs need basic sourcing and structural improvements, but they're far from unsalvageable. I have at my disposal many good books with copious breed information, and there are many online sources about these breeds as well.
3. You didn't actually have consensus for these merges, I think. You proposed them, a fellow editor objected on reasonable grounds. Then you went and did them anyway?
4. You didn't bother asking Sicilianu101, who created the vast majority of these stubs, if he had an opinion. Don't you think that would have been courteous, even if it's not required?
5. When you "merged" what you mostly did was defacto delete the content by not actually merging it in to List of goat breeds. If the consensus ends up being that we want to merge every stub in to the list, let's actually merge the information and sources in each stub.

It's been more than six months since the original discussion went on, so in addition to posting there, I wanted to drop you a personal note and explain my thinking. Have a good weekend, Steven Walling • talk 23:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've just seen your message. I've been away for a couple of days, but I'll have a look when I've caught up Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I really admire your dedication to the article and willingness to adapt to suggestions (both mine and others). I felt motivated to read the article the other day, Neelix, but I was only looking for copyedit opportunities. This is a busy week so me, but I will try to help if I can. Good luck! American Eagle (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any objections or suggestions at this time. Good work, my friend. American Eagle (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cindy Kovalak 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/Cindy Kovalak 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwy43 (talk • contribs)

Just to let you know, I've responded to User:Skookum1 regarding his post on my talk page earlier today. You can read that if you want, but just to summarize for you the gist of my response was that he needs to cool it with the accusations of bad faith — you've been around here almost as long as I have and have amassed a pretty solid reputation as a reliable and trustworthy contributor, so I genuinely don't see any reason to put a whole lot of stock in his accusation as it currently stands. Bearcat (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. A little while ago you added The Source Dance Company to List of dance companies. I see nothing in the article which would justify its inclusion in this list. Please see Talk:List of dance companies#Criteria for inclusion. I have removed the entry. If you disagree please open a section at Talk:List of dance companies suggesting why it should be included.

As far as the article itself is concerned, I don't want to pick on the people mentioned at all, but with the exception of Joshua Beamish, who may well deserve his own article (do you want to have a go at that?), none of the people mentioned seem to have any web presence beyond the usual social media sites. I think you should remove mention of them in the absence of reliably sourced content which explains why they are notable in the context of an article about this dance group.

Please discuss article improvements in detail on the relevant article talk page and otherwise reply here to keep this conversation in one place --Mirokado (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mirokado,

Thank you for contacting me on this issue. I have responded to List of dance companies' inclusion criteria on the corresponding talk page, and I have removed the two sources from The Source Dance Company that solely serve to indicate that a non-notable person danced for the company. I agree that Beamish deserves his own article, although I am currently busy writing articles about beauty pageants and do not think that I will find time to write an article about Beamish soon; feel free to start one without me if you are interested.

Neelix (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I will wait another day or so for any other comment before responding on the list. Thanks also for the change to the article. There are still substantial problems which I will continue to comment on here as they are more "general philosophy of writing on Wikipedia" than anything to do with that article in particular.

The source was a wall of text and there were no spaces at all between the citation parameters. This represented a significant barrier to collaborative editing. Given the density of citations (in itself of course a good thing) I have updated the article to use list-defined references for source content legibility. I have put a space before each solidus delimiter in the citations which gives the edit window a reasonable chance to split lines predictably.

It is helpful if the citation parameters appear roughly in display order and the order is consistent within an article.

In the same edit I have split the article into two paragraphs. This is helpful because the popups tool displays the first paragraph as a popup.

We generally remove unused parameters from infoboxen.

All this is in preparation for a more substantial content edit... --Mirokado (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added information about the company aim from its website and used that to provide context for Beamish. I also rephrased to avoid repeating "the troupe" five times in consecutive sentences.

Please provide some similar context for "performed in Sechelt" or remove that. As it stands the reader is simply going to say "so what?". --Mirokado (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 118th Avenue massage parlour 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/118th Avenue massage parlour 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. DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi David,

I too am a David; David Scott using the name Der Springer. I am writing in regards to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploits_Valley_Salmon_Festival

I was surprised to find the page so sketchy and very much in the need for improvement. Nothing personal, no doubt you have written many fine articles. After investigating, it looks as though you had to recreate the page from scratch due to copyright infringement.

Two things:

1) Would you mind if I redid most of the page's content?

2) Can you remember what was the copyright issue that made the page unusable?

I live in Grand Falls - Windsor, home of the festival, and should be able to find references for what I would write. This is not really a 100% commitment to carrying out this task but I would consider taking up the challenge based on your answers.

Thanks

Der Springer (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Neelix, thanks for adding that nice image of Hergé's signature to the upcoming Tintin FA blurb, I know you were once active on the Tintin articles, and I invite you to return, as some of us have been working to improve the articles and we could use a second pair of eyes such as yours. Cheers. —Prhartcom (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Understood; I can only imagine the amount of responsibility you must have by this time. Talk with you again someday soon, Cheers —Prhartcom (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Through this way, I inform there is a discussion about partially disambiguated titles, known as "

05:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I was very pleased to see When God Writes Your Love Story get promoted to FA today. Well done! Keep up the great work. —Cliftonian (talk) 12:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

RfD notification

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Artificial_and_Factitious. And it all started (well, the latest round of it started) when I stub-sorted a short film in Telugu this morning! PamD 17:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I had never seen it before and thought it was very interesting and eyecatching. It looks like one of those 3-D pictures that you have to train you eye to see in 3D. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

PS: I put this message on The ed17's talk page a few minutes ago. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I just undid your addition there; that device / weapon is not a "nuclear weapon" (atomic / nuclear bomb or hydrogen / thermonuclear bomb), it's classified as a radiological weapon. Those belong in separate lists / articles. But it is a fascinating article, I am going to go look at the references... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Less notable speeches listed in Template:Barack Obama, like you didn't build that, should be merged. If merger is not the answer, then you can summarize them. Of course, you can bring that up in WP:WikiProject Barack Obama. --George Ho (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, it won't be for a while, but I'll get to it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi David, I'm sorry to bother you but I need an administrator to give me a hand with something. I would like to add the British South Africa Company flag (here) to Template:Country data Southern Rhodesia for use before dates before 1923 (under the alias "1890", "company" or "bsac"), but I'm not able to do so as the page is locked for non-administrators. Do you think this is something you could lend a hand with? Thanks, John —Cliftonian (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi John,

I have added the flag variant. Please let me know if I have completed all you requested. On a separate note, thank you very much for your helpful review of the When God Writes Your Love Story article; I was pleased to see the article featured. I have initiated another FAC here. If you have the time, I would be grateful for whatever comments you are willing to offer.

Neelix (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for helping, David! I'm afraid it doesn't seem to be working, though... I think you need to add " | variant = {{{variant|}}}" to it (see the differences between the source code here and here to see what I mean). But apart from that it looks great. Thanks for the head up on the new FAC! I'm glad to see it focuses on another wholesome subject. I will be more than happy to review over the next few days and lend a hand generally. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your additional explanation as to how to make the variant flag work properly. I have attempted to alter the source code accordingly. Feel free to give me further pointers if I have not fixed the problem. Thank you for your encouragement and willingness to review the Kellie Loder article; your comments have been very helpful in the past. Neelix (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that; it works now. Great! I've reviewed the Kellie Loder article now, I hope that helps. Of course it is always a pleasure to give you a hand, please let me know whenever I can do so. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)