User talk:Rhododendrites/2015a

Dear Rhododendrite (as a geologist I like your user name),

Thank you for your comments on Vernon O. Johnson, Anne Beckwith Johnson, and Home is Where the Bus is. In researching other personalities and books, I still find that the accomplishments of their endeavors warrants the encyclopedic entry.

Your points are well taken. I am an older user, and haven’t figured the navigation yet. I appreciate your reaching out.

The reason I added the latter two, is because the first recommendation for deletion for Vernon said that there were no links form other sites, and since books and authors are notable, I thought that they could provide that.

In today’s world it is hard to imagine what a threat the USSR was to Americans in 1960. The Trans-Siberian Railway was closed in 1917 to all tourist travel. Because of Vernon’s dogged persistence and two meetings with Premier Khrushchev, he managed to do the inconceivable. Very little of the story is in the pages, as I was trying to get across what the driving forces in a man’s life might be to have him gamble all his investments to live in a smallish bus with 8 children for almost two years in order to see if his dream of face-to-face communication could be successful in breaking down political barriers in a fearful world. And he did.

From your experience does it seem like I a completely wasting my time? My original “deleter” seems to have more knowledge about sports than Cold War issues, and i feel like I am swimming upstream.

Your thoughts? Thanks, JendaAJ (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Jenda

@JendaAJ: - Hi. Sorry it took a few days to respond.

To respond to your primary question: I don't think you're wasting your time. Wikipedia is both deceptively easy to edit and deceptively difficult to edit. Easy in that you just click edit and you can change what's on a page. Difficult in that there are a whole lot of rules, standards, techniques, discussion venues, processes, etc. that, while it's not necessary to be familiar with all of them, do require some adaptation along the way.

To clarify my own AfD opinion: I said "Keep or Move to draft namespace / Userfy". Keep is clear, but the other two are ways we delete the article from the encyclopedia but keep it's content in a different part of the site. The idea is that the subject might be appropriate, but isn't quite ready yet. When an article is prefaced by "Draft:" it can still be seen and edited until which time it's considered ready to be turned back into an article, but isn't categorized, isn't linked to from other articles, won't appear in search results, etc. Given the current discussion, I think this is a likely outcome.

What do you think about what I mentioned at the AfD? To summarize: In my opinion the subject that is notable here is probably Vernon, but may also be the bus trip or the family. Since you know the story and what sources exist best, which do you think is the focus of most of the coverage?

The two most important things going forward are

1. Get together as many good sources as you can. Sources that verify that something is true are helpful, but far more important are sources about the subject. It's for lack of the latter that things are most often deleted as it is that kind of coverage that constitutes "notability." If they're online either as websites or scans of old materials, that's ideal -- that way other people can help you write the article and you don't have to do it yourself.
   • It's worth mentioning that "notable" is a technical term on Wikipedia defined in some detail at WP:Notability. Most books, people, events, companies, etc. are not notable by this technical meaning. Basically what is "notable" equals what has received a good amount of coverage that is (a) published in reliable sources (a gray area but largely based on things like fact-checking, editorial oversight, reputation of the author, and those sorts of traditional journalistic-style evaluations); (b) independent of the subject (not written by or published by anybody with any personal or financial connection to the subject of the article); (c) in depth (a brief mention in an article about something else doesn't help, for example); (d) over a span of time (this is also a gray area -- basically it just means a single event that had some buzz for a day and was never discussed again is not typically notable, but if the coverage was over time or for a number of things it's not a concern).
2. Once all the sources are available, edit the article to ensure it doesn't include material that isn't covered in the cited sources, and that it reflects various aspects of the subject in proportion to which those aspects are discussed in the reliable sources. In other words there may be a good amount of extra detail. Other editors, including myself, can help with this if we have access to the sources.

At this point I wouldn't worry too much about links from other pages. It's not part of the deletion rationale currently on the table. Once the AfD is closed I can help with that if it's still an issue for anyone.

I wouldn't claim to be an expert on the Cold War by a long-shot, except as a generalist and as a chess player :) but that's typically the case on Wikipedia -- we're editors rather than authors. And to that end what is most important is that other people who do know what they're talking about have written about the subjects that are covered here.

I hope this helps. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: -- Being a chess player does count. You were incredibly helpful!! (Though I still bumble through the hoops and forget where I’ve been :>D. How do you keep track of where different conversations occurred???) I was pleased to see an editor remove the “Delete” status!!

I have been addressing all the other issues listed at the top of the VOJ page, and am uncertain as to how to eliminate them, including:

• 'A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject.’ I can’t help this, but have two unbiased editors advising me.
• This article appears to be written like an advertisement. (December 2014)’'’ I have gotten rid of anything that might give this appearance.
• 'The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. (December 2014)’ Per subsequent editors, this has been addressed, plus we added a 48-page pdf of news articles as downloadable file.
• This article needs additional citations for verification. (December 2014) I think it has enough here.
• 'This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it.’ That’s why I introduced the Anne Beckwith Johnson and Home is Where the Bus Is links, but have removed those as they will likely be deleted per notability status. JendaAJ (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC) big thanks to you.

@JendaAJ: Ok, first some technical wiki stuff:

• FYI A line break in a wiki doesn't actually create a line break, so the separate lines you created for each of the above ("A major contributor..", "This article appears..", etc.) end up collapsing to a single paragraph.
  • To create a line break/paragraph, you can either create an extra line break (creating a blank line between two lines of text) or start the next line with a symbol that indicates it's a new line (like : for an indent, * for a bulletpoint, # for a numbered list, etc.).
    • You can also combine these like I am here (this line begins with three colons (typically each person's response adds one more for each line to indent intelligibly) and three asterisks (third-level bulletpoint))
• Keeping track of different conversations can be kind of tricky. When you edit a page it's usually a good idea to "watch this page". Later, when someone else edits the same page, it will show up in your watchlist (see Special:Watchlist). You can also check your user contribution history to find pages you've contributed to. When a page is nominated for deletion, a record of that discussion is linked to from that article's talk page (see Talk:Vernon O. Johnson near the top). Other than that, it's mostly a matter of becoming familiar with the layout of things and how things link together. It's not always easy, though, and since I have something like 4000 pages on my watchlist and have edited another many thousand on top of that, I bookmark things I think I'll want to come back to and keep some records via text files on my desktop.
• Nobody expects you to remember all of this, by the way. There are many venues to ask for help. WP:TEAHOUSE is probably the best place for new editors to ask just about anything.

Regarding deletion:

• The deletion tag wasn't simply removed from the Vernon O. Johnson article by another editor. The removal of the tag is just a formality once the deletion discussion has been closed -- and it was closed with consensus to keep the article.

Regarding maintenance templates (that's what we call those notices at the top of the page you've copied here):

• Basically those tags can be added by anybody to just about any article to point out concerns. If the person who added them isn't clear about why they were added, best practice is to start a new section on the article's talk page asking how best to address them. If nobody responds, you can just remove them. Ideally, however, people will respond, the problem(s) can be addressed, and then they can be removed.
• A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject - You're right, you can't help this. Because people use Wikipedia for promotional purposes all the time, many of us can be cynical when it comes to people writing about things that concern them directly (personally, financially, etc.). In my experience the best approach would be to create a section on the talk page disclosing your conflict of interest, explaining that people are helping you and also asking for feedback/advice to ensure the article doesn't come off as promotional.
• This article appears to be written like an advertisement. - Another one it would be best to ask about on the talk page (and you may want to ping C.Fred as the one who added the tags in the first place). Since you do have a conflict of interest, even if you're acting in good faith, people may still be cynical if you remove this one yourself. Best to bring it up on the talk page and wait for someone else to remove it.
• The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. - I removed this just now. The deletion discussion addressed indeed addressed it.
• This article needs additional citations for verification. - I removed this one, too. Lots of sources. If someone has a problem now it's probably more likely about WP:UNDUE than verifiability.
• This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. - This one isn't as big of a deal. Go to the article for his hometown and add him to "Notable residents" if such a section exists. Or a "notable alumni" page at a school he attended. Maybe there's an article about events that took place that year where it would make sense to add the bus trip. Maybe a list of soldiers. There are so many pages on Wikipedia -- this is just about finding a few to link from rather than adding new articles to link from.

--— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to revert the part about Jewish supremacism because it exists. It is both written about in the Bible, torah and many other texts. And have a lot to back it up. It's nothing less to vandalism to remove it.

You should rather ban the user who vandalizes the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olehal09 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Olehal09: - Hi. The reason I reverted your edit and left the message on your talk page actually has nothing to do with what you wrote, but that you're trying to force your additions via an edit war (repeatedly making the same or very similar changes when others undo them). That's never the right way to go and disrupts both the editing of the article and the process of collaboration. More practically, for your sake, it also attracts attention [of passerbys like me] who will revert because you're edit warring regardless of what it is you're edit warring about. Because Wikipedia operates by consensus, any challenged material needs to be discussed and justified on the talk page before being included (regardless of how true it is). A good model to follow is WP:BRD: make a Bold edit (add/remove substantial content), someone else might Revert it, and then it's time to Discuss on the talk page. You'll probably find you have more influence over the article content by going about it that way rather than simply reinserting the material. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, noted. I'm not going to continue this edit war, but if no one discuss with me on the talk page, I'll take that as proof that we've reached a consensus. Olehal09 (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You wrote clearly what I should have written (and what I thought that I had read). I don't understand how the people wanting to keep the article are invoking the organizational notability guideline (GNG?). 83.254.148.228 (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. WP:CORPDEPTH would normally apply to an organization like this, but given the centrality of criminal activity it renders that particular guideline moot. WP:GNG is the general notability guideline -- the rule of thumb that can be applied to any article. Most more specific notability criteria like CORPDEPTH are logical extensions of GNG. There's a list someone put together of frequently cited policies and guidelines in deletion debates here: Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates. But yeah, it's a pretty cut and dry delete. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I have lots of documentation of Judy Rifka as a contemporary fluxus artist. Just need time to gather the citations for documentation. I've added a footnote reference to a Huffington Post article since your deletion in the article on Fluxus. The placement of my initial addition to her wikilink Judy Rifka was especially appropriate when discussing fluxus in cyberspace. Sorry that I didn't realize that (undo) was the wrong way to approach the reversion to my original comment.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mitzi.humphrey: Thanks for the message. The general rule for artists in art movement articles (or any specific example in an article about a larger subject) is that he/she should be presented in proportion to his or her role in the entire body of literature on the subject. So whereas a very high percentage of work on fluxus talks about George Maciunas, none of the work talks about me, and somewhere between there is just about everybody else :) If there are no sources about fluxus that talk about Rifka, it's highly unlikely it would be due weight to mention her beyond adding her to the list at the bottom. Maybe a sentence or two if many sources which aren't about fluxus nonetheless call her work fluxus or mention her in connection to it. It comes down to the fact that there's a whole lot out there about fluxus, so there's a higher bar than, say, something like metamodernism and somewhat lower than for abstract expressionism (again, based on the availability of sources on each). It's all very hard to measure, of course, and these standards, while part of Wikipedia policy, are not uniformly enforced. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Rhododentrites: I'll try to work up a draft of documentation of Fluxus contributions by Judy and add them when I have more time. Thank you for your suggestions.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rhododendrites, you've recently reverted a spurious addition to this list by a known serial IP vandal - I've left a message on EncMstr's talk page as he is pretty good at promptly blocking the IP. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bahudhara: Thanks for the heads up. What exactly is the user's MO? Is it connected to this SPI mentioned on EncMstr's page: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SpaceX33333? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

No, this IP user is not the same - his MO consists of constructing fake taxonomies for biological and palaeological topics (including some paranormal and non-living phenomena!). He has been intermittently active for more than 2 years, and never responds to messages on his talkpage. On occasions he has created new articles consisting of gibberish mixed with text copy-pasted from other articles. Due to these being quickly deleted, he has changed his MO to creating article talk pages, rather than actual articles. The IP addresses he uses are scattered over an area of north-eastern Pennsylvania. Occasionally he uses what may be his own name - Edward Ostroski. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

You can check here for the SPI case I have opened after evaluating comments from [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nitesh Estates Limited]‎]: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kratipaw34 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethically Yours (talk • contribs) 06:45, 12 January 2015‎

@Ethically yours: Thanks. Indeed is an issue. I commented at the SPI but unfortunately this week I won't have any blocks of time big enough to contribute much to it. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Your patience and calm do you well, per AGF. I was impressed by the way you went beyond explaining what you were doing (deleting contentious unsourced material) to give the user you reverted instructions on how they, too, may do so constructively. That technique may not always work, but it seems like a great way to start making a good editor out of a POV newbie who, after all, has demonstrated interest in editing Wikipedia one way or another. Cheers! FourViolas (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@FourViolas: Thanks. :) Better to waste time than to lose a potentially productive editor. Based on emails I received, I think we can conclude it was not fruitful in this case, though. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh well. You get karma, and our friend has a harder time convincing himself that WP is evil. Plus, you've practiced being kind and civil, which will serve you well in case you ever take a job as a diplomat. Cheers! FourViolas (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I stole your version of the delsort script and added it to my own, this is exactly what I was looking for thanks! War wizard90 (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@War wizard90: Great! Can I ask what's different about yours? (I'm editing on a mobile device presently, which makes extensive hunting/comparison challenging) :) --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I just had the standard script installed which only has basic categories for sorting, and they weren't organized in any particular manner. I noticed you were sorting more complex categories using delsort, and saw you had a custom script and tried it, this version is much more useful for sorting AfD's. -War wizard90 (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I'll work on that. MW (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Smallgwg: Great. If you have questions about this in the future feel free to ask, of course. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Linking to the thread this concerns for my future reference. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

		The WikiCookie
		You've learned how to use basic wikicode in your sandbox. You can always return there to experiment more.

Posted automatically via sandbox guided tour. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

On 24 January 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The American Review (literary journal), which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that after The American Review's owner expressed admiration for Hitler and Mussolini, a former contributor said he wouldn't write for it again "if it were the last publication left in America"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The American Review (literary journal). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Harrias ^talk 02:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_music Why is it here at Heavy Metal are either of you not changing this. It looks Dramatically better and is ACCURATE. If you want more details, the Main Article is hardcore punk. The word main article in the see more section isn't helping. Heavy Metal is more popular. I also have ( a few) 100,000 (hundred thousand) units behind me in Hardcore Punk. I am an expert on the genre for sure, Furthermore Heavy Metal is More Popular why not change those to fit your "templates" . Is it such a big deal tp try and flex "editor" muscle. What are you actually Improving with a less professional way of wording things 2601:C:2081:2B30:E166:8F28:8B75:2ABF (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Its an underground semi-above ground genre anytime we get something to present it in a much more uniform professional manor, many times someone who probably hasn't much experience with it meddles and makes it look amateur. Thanks for that. Well done. 73.193.195.69 (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What in the world does any of this have to do with changing a template to "for more information"? If you want something changed on Wikipedia, ranting about being an expert, edit warring, and demanding your way is more accurate will get you nowhere. That's just the kind of site this is. Edit warring in particular will immediately make the benefit of the doubt go to whatever position you're not supporting (the assumption is that whoever is right can convince people they're right on the talk page and not resort to edit warring). In this case, however, it's an easy one because it's a basic stylistic thing. We have templates for a reason, as I said. If you don't like the template, take it up at Template talk:Main or WT:MOS. Otherwise it's a basic matter of wanting consistency of style across the site. There are other similar templates like Template:See also (and others linked from there), but use one of them. Templates also allow people to run various reports about template use to come up with, say, a list of article sections which contain a summary of another article (something use of the Main template would allow for that some text would not). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I received a "thank you" message from you for just a little edit in Hate speech. I appreciate that very much since I'm not a native english speaker, and I was a bit insecure if my edit is correct at all. That's why I want to thank you for your "thank you" :-). --J.Ammon (talk) 12:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@J.Ammon: It was indeed correct. Thanks for improving the wiki (and for the thanks-thanks :) ). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey man, I was just adding the example of how the German, a nonlatinate language, uses Bibliothek as its word for library, and this guy keeps editing back to just the French version. It is expected that French has pretty much the exact Latin word for library, but less expected that German does. So I'm going to edit it back because my contribution enriches the page, while the other guy keeps removing that enrichment without warrant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Minty Penguin (talk • contribs) 11:38, 26 January 2015‎

(responded at User talk:A Minty Penguin) --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I've nominated this article for DYK here. Please tell me if you want this nomination to be deleted. Thanks. Epic Genius (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Fine with me, but thanks for the notice/offer. I'm trying to procure images, so was waiting on that to self-nominate, but it's unclear if they're coming and I don't know that I would've gotten around to it within the deadline so it's probably best you did so. Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Epic Genius (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Do you have any hooks other than what I put up? I'd be interested in seeing what your proposed hooks are. Epic Genius (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If Ulbricht is convicted of the crime, I'm assuming that would dispel your WP:CRIME objections to an article about him. His is a fascinating case, and he is an interesting person very much in the public eye. I for one would search Wikipedia for information about him. BTW, are you an administrator? Chisme (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Chisme: Certainly if he were convicted, WP:BLPCRIME would not apply (I think that's the link you mean). WP:CRIME, which relates to notability rather than BLP policy, would still be an issue to be considered since it starts with A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. Since the Silk Road article is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to Dread Pirate Roberts, that would seem to mean it should go there. But notability really was a distant secondary concern when I redirected those two articles. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, and no, I'm not an administrator. By the way, I started a thread over at the BLPN on the subject, if you would like to weigh in: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, thank you for reaching out. I am just a fan of the band and specifically Athan Hilaki since he was with GAD. There are plenty of articles online that show the bands history as well as the musician itself, articles from established websites, which you can locate in the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outliner (talk • contribs) 02:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Outliner: Hi. I think we have three parallel threads going now. :) To condense, I think this is best taken over to the deletion discussion. Check out the notability criteria for bands to ensure it does indeed meet that criteria (most bands don't), gather all the articles/links you can find (the reliable ones), and include them with an argument for it being kept at the discussion page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trapped In Static. I do always look myself before nominating and couldn't find enough sources to support it, but I could certainly be wrong. Since it looks like they have roots in Greece it made me wonder if some were available in Greek that I wouldn't be seeing by searching in English. But yes, do add them to the deletion discussion. Remember, too, to finish every talk page post you write with four tildes (like ~~~~). Doing so will sign your post. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Hi. I have added some links on that article from well established websites, I hope these work. Thank you.

Care to inform me which of the many parts of ELNO you thought my recent edit of the Imageboard article violated? Aren't links to imageboard software projects relevant in an article about imageboards? In case they aren't, should the links to the other projects (CamelBoard, etc.) in the table I edited (or the entire table) also be removed? Or is there something specific to the Danbooru project that makes it unsuitable for linking?

I'm not an "established user", but I'm trying to help. Getting edits that aren't obvious vandalism or spam reverted without meaningful explanation does not make it easier to learn.

OnceAndFutureFlopsy (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@OnceAndFutureFlopsy: Typically a link to the website of an individual non-notable (i.e. doesn't have a Wikipedia article of its own) example of the article subject falls under WP:ELNO #1, #13, #14, and/or #19. So the standard answer would be no, a link to an imageboard software project is not appropriate for an article about imageboards because Wikipedia is not a software directory and includes only the most significant examples, defined the vast majority of the time by those examples which have articles themselves. That said, I didn't notice when I reverted that you were adding a link to a long list of links. The list shouldn't be there, in my opinion, but it's possible a local consensus emerged with a compelling reason to keep them and if I'm not prepared to address the whole list on the talk page, I have no reason to remove one single link. So I've restored it. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I used Wikipedia for several years before I registered, and I've come to understand that, in general, "Wikipedia is not the yellow pages". However, I've also gotten used to seeing extensive "Comparison of products in category X" articles. (Among many others, there are "Comparison of web server software", "Comparison of dental practice management software" and "Comparison of wiki hosting services".) Many editors must have thought that the convenience of product comparison articles trumped their (arguably) unencyclopedic nature. That's why I didn't question the legitimacy of the table I edited.

Anyway, thanks for your explanation. If you and other people who know things eventually decide that the table or the project links in Imageboard are inappropriate, then I won't dispute that. OnceAndFutureFlopsy (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Totally understandable. Software articles in general are a really shoddy area of Wikipedia. It's where you're more likely to find lists of external links or even, as was the case for me recently, coming across articles for some niche software that have somehow existed for 7 years as no more than a copy/paste of features from the developer's website. The horror. Those lists you pointed to don't look like they're in bad shape as others (List of unit testing frameworks was recently pointed out to me as an example of an abomination in its present state). These two just look like they haven't been checked up recently by those who care to remove the entries without wikipedia articles about them (and the primary sources). Anyway, Comparison of web server software no longer contains the redlinks. :) --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for creating The History of Nordic Women's Literature, Rhododendrites!

Wikipedia editor WordSeventeen just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Excellent article. Well done. Thanks

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

Learn more about page curation.

I don't know how this happened, but I did not make these edits.

I did not even visit the pages to which you and the others refer.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.10.195 (talk • contribs)

@86.157.10.195: The edit I undid is the one visible here. It's possible you did not make the edit, but the IP is the same one you used to leave this message. I only left one of those messages, though; three other people noticed the vandalism coming from the IP you're using, ultimately resulting in a block. If you feel it was an error, see Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, you are wrong - it is NOT possible that I made the edit. Because I don't do that sort of thing. Simple as that. And I resent being accused like this. As I said, I don't know how my IP address was used, and nobody else in this family even knows about editing Wikipedia. Maybe the IP address was spoofed. The fact is these accusations made by you and three other people came out of the blue and are rather disturbing. There's a sense of being presumed guilty before being proved otherwise, and it makes me feel uncomfortable.

It is a pity that, when suspicion is aroused, the accusers don't insert a paragraph with polite suggestions as to how it might have happened - maybe a visitor to the house (highly unlikely in this case), or maybe one's router gets a reboot to an IP address that has been used by a Wikipedia vandal, thereby "inheriting" a notice such as that I received.

That would be a courtesy that costs nothing more than a few key strokes, or a cut and paste of such a prepared text. 86.153.94.178 (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

.... by the way, I think my IP address changed becasue of a router reboot, hence my thought about one reason that an action is misattributed. (Sorry about not signing that first post - I get the tildes now) 86.153.94.178 (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

All of this is possible. If someone doesn't register for a username, IP is all we have to go on. But there's a reason why, for example, when we block an IP it's never permanent -- because someone else could eventually have that IP. We don't give reasons why it could've happened because it's extremely rare that two have the same IP in the same time frame and both edit Wikipedia, one of them problematically, unless at a shared computer like at a school. Regardless, there's an easy fix: register an account. Then there's no confusion. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the trouble to explain. 86.145.121.183 (talk) 09:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for sending me the link to that story! Juno (talk) 08:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Juno: No problem. I don't disagree with your decision to remove them when they were originally added. They were, especially given the edit warring and now knowing the COI, problematic. I spent a good amount of time researching and reworking the section, so while the fact of the class assignment is concerning, I hope you'll agree the article as it is is reasonably solid. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a better article now. Thank you for your work on this. Jonathunder (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Seconded -- you're doing a great job on the article. --JBL (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me, sorry, it wasn't clear. So I either have to be a notable entity or write an article to add my system to the list? How does one become notable?64.234.49.106 (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Thanks for your help

Hi there. Well, I feel like I should first point you to WP:COI. It's usually ill-advised to write an article about something you're connected to, but there's no explicit rule against it. But to answer your question more directly, "notability" is Wikipedia's quasi-objective measure of importance based entirely on the amount of coverage something has received in reliable sources. There's the general notability guideline which applies to almost everything but then there's also a specialized criteria for software, WP:NSOFT. The reliable sources part is what's ambiguous for some people, so I'd check out that page first to get the gist. I hope that helps. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

On 14 February 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Interference Archive, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that an April 2013 exhibit in the Interference Archive featured homemade cardboard shields that were confiscated by the New York Police Department as weapons? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Interference Archive. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you were right to propose List of chess historians for deletion. The topic might be worthy of an article, but this article isn't it. The page hasn't improved over time, and no one seems interested or willing to fix it, so keeping the page as it is is not helpful. I think I will write a new section in prose in History of chess and redirect the list page to it as I suggested at WT:CHESS#Proposed deletion of list of chess historians. I'm busy with coursework right now, but I'll put it on my list. Quale (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Quale: Yes, the article as it is has serious problems. I stand by the PROD, but wasn't really thinking when I AfDed as it's just not the kind of problem AfD fixes (sources exist to establish notability, WP:TNT is a hard case to make, and it's not the right place to suggest redirect/merge). So yes, dealt with at the article level is better. I think a section at history of chess sounds like a great idea. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I have used a number of reliable sources to significantly expand and improve the Renee Bull article. I respectfully request that you review the article in its current state and reconsider your !vote in the current discussion. - Dravecky (talk) 03:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done I did take another look. The Promote Peace Now articles are good since they add another angle, but I don't agree that these demonstrate notability. So I've changed my !vote from delete to weak delete. It's looking like it's going to be kept, so regardless of my opinion, nice job [potentially] rescuing an article. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

thanks I had messed up the reference somehow,

going to translate page into french now :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matibenbaruch (talk • contribs) 19:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@Matibenbaruch: Hello. Yes that references looked like an error. However, the other changes that you made under the "typos" edit summary are not typos, which suggests a mistake in typing. Any .onion address, if we give one at all, needs to be accompanied by a reliable source. Deepdotweb really stretches that concept, but it isn't quite bad enough to remove it. The Tor article is actually at Tor (anonymity network). Tor (anonymous network) redirects. Not a big deal there, but better to point at the real target if we're going to display something different (just "Tor") anyway. I think it's great you're translating it int French, btw. Good luck with the translation! — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Undoing revisions should be done just as carefully as adding information. If you are just going to slash and burn, perhaps you should leave the work to people who care enough to IMPROVE the article. All the corrections and improvements I made to the article were also wiped out and you didn't take responsibility to keep the improvements. Please correct your mistakes.

Thanks,

+LiL-BuZZard

I think I see what you're referring to. You are correct that I removed more than I intended. I'm on my phone at the moment but would be happy to readd the information when I'm at my computer tonight or tomorrow. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@LiL-BuZZard: Now that I take a closer look, I don't see what you're talking about at all. I presume we're talking about Comparison of file hosting services. My only two reverts are: here, in which I remove only the "Other Services without a stand alone entry" section, and here in which I reverted edits in which you added an entry that doesn't have an article and removed the formatting for a single cell of another entry. What were the improvements you made that you're saying I removed? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

In the area? You're invited to the
Edina edit-a-thon
	Date: Sunday, March 1, 2015
	Time: 2 to 5 PM
	Place: Ethel Berry Room Southdale Library 7001 York Avenue South 44.8755°N 93.3198°W / 44.8755; -93.3198

Thanks. Unfortunately I'm about a thousand miles away or I'd be there. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)