User talk:Rhododendrites/2014e

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot 4 October 2014

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have. Views/Day Quality Title Content Headings Images Links Sources Tagged with… 537 Generic top-level domain (talk) Add sources 14 Peacefire (talk) Add sources 2,484 Server (computing) (talk) Add sources 7 Franck Vogel (talk) Add sources 84 IBM Sametime (talk) Add sources 7 Bawwa (talk) Add sources 1,529 Internet Relay Chat (talk) Cleanup 60 Wrike (talk) Cleanup 49 Web-based slideshow (talk) Cleanup 365 Microsoft Forefront Threat Management Gateway (talk) Expand 375 Comparison of wiki software (talk) Expand 10,344 Internet (talk) Expand 62 Mass collaboration (talk) Unencyclopaedic 645 IBM Notes (talk) Unencyclopaedic 13 Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (talk) Unencyclopaedic 124 Africa (Roman province) (talk) Merge 482 Comparison of instant messaging clients (talk) Merge 69 Desktop sharing (talk) Merge 1,202 Server Message Block (talk) Wikify 33 Declare Yourself (talk) Wikify 893 XMPP (talk) Wikify 3 Mehnajpur (talk) Orphan 19 Genius Project (talk) Orphan 7 REX American Resources (talk) Orphan 5 The Nasobame (talk) Stub 4 Ibrahimpur (talk) Stub 12 Péter Szőr (talk) Stub 17 Criminal accusation (talk) Stub 2,839 The Hidden Wiki (talk) Stub 12 Cesare Negri (talk) Stub SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping! If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for The Analytical Language of John Wilkins

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Irene Caesar

Rhododendrites, please help me with with my article on Irene Caesar. What will be your advice? The article definitely passes the criteria of noticeability, and it does not look more as a resume, than other articles on living persons. How can I stop Scaleshombre from vandalism? https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Irene_Caesar --— sophiedookh ^talk |  05:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sophiedookh: There appear to be two separate things going on, and I think you should treat them separately.

1. Nomination for deletion -- what has been happening on the page prior to this is of very little consequence. Deletion discussions like this have pretty standard ways of participating, and I'd encourage you to look through these help pages: WP:Deletion process, Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process, and in particular WP:Notability.
   • Notability is the grounds it was nominated on, so the goal for you, if you want to keep it, is to demonstrate notability. That's kind of a technical term on Wikipedia; it's a quasi-objective measure of "importance" based on, fundamentally, the extent to which reliable secondary sources cover the subject in depth.
   • Advice: The best thing you can do is to find sources that talk about Irene Caesar in depth (sources that are reliable, not published by her, and which do not just mention her name briefly), and bring them to the AfD discussion. All it takes is a message saying "I have found additional reliable sources on top of those cited which support her notability" followed by the links or citations.
   • So far it doesn't look like the deletion has any support, so you probably don't have anything to worry about, but additional sources would secure its place.
2. Problems with the article content -- I wasn't familiar with Irene Caesar before coming across this AfD page so don't have an opinion as to who is right, what should be included, and so on. It looks like the problem is that Scaleshombre wants to include material that you do not believe should be included. From the edit history, it looks like others have removed the content he/she has tried to add, as well.
   • Do your best to stay focused on the content and on Wikipedia policies. Accusing someone of defamation doesn't do anybody any good. Use the talk page (Talk:Irene Caesar) to explain why the material should not be added and perhaps what parts of Scaleshombre's additions could be added, if revised.
   • Wikipedia does take biographies of living people very seriously for defamation and other reasons. Look at the policy about that and if you feel Scaleshombre's edits are in violation, then you might consider taking it to the biographies of living persons noticeboard, a place where you can draw the attention of administrators and other users -- either to intervene or offer guidance on the matter.

I hope this helps. Let me know if you have more questions. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Rhododendrites Thank you so much! I have in fact found a couple more sources, including a recent book by Prof. Tiziana Andina which analyses Caesar's artwork. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophiedookh (talk • contribs) 00:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem, but if a book just uses her artwork it probably won't help much -- it should be about her. Also, I'll just throw out there that creating new accounts to weigh in at the AfD usually does more harm than good, since it gives the impression that an article wouldn't/shouldn't survive on its own merits. I don't know that you did this, but a new user just commented at the AfD using a similar style to yours and also copying my signature (which is fine, but unusual). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Mistake

Hi i did a mistake, i wanted to create a user page article but i createt an article. I'm not firm in the english wikipedia. Could you delete my article please. June 2001: -And the Moon will Be Still as Bright--Harald321 (talk) 12:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@Harald321: Someone else had already moved it to —And The Moon Be Still As Bright. Instead of deleting it, it seems like the best thing to do is to turn it into a redirect. So now —And The Moon Be Still As Bright forwards you to its section in The Martian Chronicles. Does that work for you? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Vice-Chancellors

Just noticed your post on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. P. Bansal. Just for information, in the Commonwealth the Chancellor of a university is a purely honorary post, similar to an honorary chairman. The Vice-Chancellor is the actual professional head of the university, equivalent to the President in the United States. So the VC is the effective highest-level position. As VC of a very small university, however, I agree that Bansal probably doesn't meet the notability level. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: Thanks for the clarification. I was going to suggest you bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics), but to my surprise not only has it come up on the talk page...it's in the notes of the guideline itself! It does say, in criterion 6, major university, so a small one founded last year wouldn't qualify, I don't think, but I was indeed ignorant. Thanks again. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot 17 October 2014

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have. Views/Day Quality Title Content Headings Images Links Sources Tagged with… 52 Music of Colorado (talk) Add sources 44 Fort Bend Independent School District (talk) Add sources 423 Symphonic metal (talk) Add sources 130 Symphonic black metal (talk) Add sources 11 Panama national cricket team (talk) Add sources 111 Samsung GALAXY Apps (talk) Add sources 1,068 X Window System (talk) Cleanup 377 The Red Jumpsuit Apparatus (talk) Cleanup 9 Kill After Kill (talk) Cleanup 667 Tencent QQ (talk) Expand 12 New Territory, Texas (talk) Expand 1,896 Iowa (talk) Expand 114 8tracks.com (talk) Unencyclopaedic 442 Heavy metal subgenres (talk) Unencyclopaedic 5,363 Deep Web (talk) Unencyclopaedic 834 Multitier architecture (talk) Merge 48 Eastern Kentucky Coalfield (talk) Merge 1,317 WWE NXT (talk) Merge 373 WebMD (talk) Wikify 315 Our Last Night (talk) Wikify 188 10 Years (band) (talk) Wikify 9 Lizard communication (talk) Orphan 3 Jim Bachi (talk) Orphan 1 Pandy Malayalam (talk) Orphan 93 Deathgrind (talk) Stub 28 Metropolitan Statistical Areas of New Jersey (talk) Stub 16 Baidu Space (talk) Stub 6 Osterburg, Pennsylvania (talk) Stub 86 Colorado's congressional districts (talk) Stub 10 Tennessee cave salamander (talk) Stub SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping! If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Rhododendrites:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggesetBot 1 November 2014

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have. Views/Day Quality Title Content Headings Images Links Sources Tagged with… 6 American International School of Budapest (talk) Add sources 1,284 Open-source software (talk) Add sources 59 Mines ParisTech (talk) Add sources 128 Sociology of knowledge (talk) Add sources 27 John Law (sociologist) (talk) Add sources 77 HM Prison Pentridge (talk) Add sources 1,018 Deconstruction (talk) Cleanup 925 David Blaine (talk) Cleanup 15 R. Radhakrishnan (talk) Cleanup 341 Social theory (talk) Expand 409 Gender studies (talk) Expand 18 History of science policy (talk) Expand 1,333 Video game genres (talk) Unencyclopaedic 69 Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict (talk) Unencyclopaedic 60 Critique of technology (talk) Unencyclopaedic 56 Scientometrics (talk) Merge 6 Index of philosophical literature (talk) Merge 460 Social constructivism (talk) Merge 691 Relativism (talk) Wikify 589 Jean Baudrillard (talk) Wikify 528 Sokal affair (talk) Wikify 4 Anders Blok (talk) Orphan 111 The Returned (Mott novel) (talk) Orphan 6 SwiftKanban (talk) Orphan 16 Rastar (talk) Stub 33 Michel Callon (talk) Stub 90 Platform technology (talk) Stub 4 Carlo Fadda (talk) Stub 15 Steve Woolgar (talk) Stub 25 Economics of science (talk) Stub SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping! If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rhododendrites. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 23:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks..

That is all I have to say! --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Merger of articles from Herpetarium and Ophidiarium to Serpentarium

Instead of deleting these, as you proposed, I've merged them instead. Please pardon me for being too bold. Bearian (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Fine with me. I did move move the content to make herpetarium the central article as being the most broad, though. See Talk:Herpetarium#Page names/moves/redirects. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to say thank you for the advice. Yeah I should have known better than to add too much from the primary source- I just wasn't sure if it was basic enough or not. Thanks for taking the time to give me some feedback so I can become a better editor, and I completely understand the concern for anything looking promotional! Alicia Pileggi (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Alicia Pileggi: No problem (and, by the way, greetings from a past HASTACker). Feel free to leave a message here if you have questions/challenges with your assignment/editing in the future. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

This is just to let you know that I'm very appreciative of your contributions to the improvement of List of restaurants in Lagos! Thanks!! Eruditescholar (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Eruditescholar: Sure thing. It's starting to look a little crazy with so many footnotes next to each one. Do you see prospects for future articles for any of the restaurants in particular? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I observed the same thing too! Some of the restaurants listed are actually worthy of separate articles!! Eruditescholar (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Hairy Presidents

Thanks for all your work on that article! Czolgolz (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Ovation Press

"Maybe, but a speedy was declined in 2007, so I just assumed bring it here." You did right - sorry if I sounded critical, it was just an advisory note. Deb (talk) 10:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

No worries. I know it's a way of emphasizing the case for deletion rather than criticism of the nomination -- I've said it myself more than a couple times -- just thought I'd clarify :) --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding NSONGS and AFD of Rihanna articles, please see here.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)#WP:NSONG_needs_re-evaluating_and_re-wording

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot 15 November 2014

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have. Views/Day Quality Title Content Headings Images Links Sources Tagged with… 160 Radio frequency engineering (talk) Add sources 18 Wiebe Bijker (talk) Add sources 37 Style Jukebox (talk) Add sources 148 Science wars (talk) Add sources 367 Experimental music (talk) Add sources 6,562 .5: The Gray Chapter (talk) Add sources 349 TorSearch (talk) Cleanup 1,173 Social constructionism (talk) Cleanup 14 Scientific community metaphor (talk) Cleanup 428 Structure and agency (talk) Expand 29 Bibliography of anthropology (talk) Expand 315 Mobile digital media player (talk) Expand 30 Nicholas Gruner (talk) Unencyclopaedic 361 Biopower (talk) Unencyclopaedic 344 Southern rock (talk) Unencyclopaedic 103 Bibliometrics (talk) Merge 16 Lull (band) (talk) Merge 696 Homicide (talk) Merge 757 Soy sauce (talk) Wikify 289 Ethnomethodology (talk) Wikify 1 Abol Hussein Tanhai (talk) Wikify 7 Communicative ecology (talk) Orphan 2 Loci (band) (talk) Orphan 13 Hansoft (talk) Orphan 879 Bloodstone & Diamonds (talk) Stub 174 Blu Products (talk) Stub 19 Technical change (talk) Stub 148 Sheep Marketplace (talk) Stub 14 S. Barry Barnes (talk) Stub 365 Andreas Antonopoulos (talk) Stub SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping! If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

A little quick notification

You are now apparently part of this #GamerGate thing on the supporting side according to this leading fellow against it: - All because you reverted edits to the List of hate groups because there was no correct sourcing to support it. Appears they're quite angry that Wikipedia guidelines got in their way. Keep watch for edit wars there. 72.78.145.144 (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Gah! And I've been so good at being uninvolved so far! :) Thanks for the heads up. May have been a mistake given the number of people on either side watching her Twitter, but I responded directly. A look through my edits will, I think, show no real bias in either direction except what might be suggested by the fact that I watch an SPLC-related page, I guess. For the record, I would have removed GamerGate from List of Saints, List of horror movies, List of Cheers episodes, List of intelligent dance music artists, and any other list that they didn't fit on -- it just happened to be a list of hate groups (a very specifically defined list of hate groups). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Terror / My Chemical Romance

"punk" sources . You think even with a source they are "punk" rock . Find one . For either or both otherwise NO PROMO . For band or anyone 68.39.152.45 (talk) 06:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@68.39.152.45: You are correct about Terror -- in the sense that their article doesn't actually have a source for them being classified as punk rock. My Chemical Romance does, though. Lots of people go to battle over genres based on what they perceive to be the truth of the matter, not caring about sourcing (and thus Wikipedia policy on the matter). It looked like that was the case when I saw your edit summaries and checked the My Chemical Romance page, seeing a source. Didn't get to Terror, which was my mistake. All Wikipedia cares about is that there's a source either at the list or at the band's article. If not the genre can be removed not because of some absolute truth that it doesn't apply, but because it's not sourced. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Right well the real deal lis anyone who knows a shred about music knows any band can find some moron who said they were something they are not . They never will be "punk" nor will they ever be more than laughed at by the punk scene because thats what happens to fakes . Can anyone show that at anytime they actually PLAYED PUNK . Doubtful . Its ok . those genres aren't ever going to help them with anyone out of intermediate school . have a nice day 68.39.152.45 (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You may be right. I don't have a strong opinion either way. The point is -- as counter-intuitive as it may sound -- that they actually play music that does or does not belong in a particular genre is immaterial at the list, which only cares that there's a citation at the article. My advice to you would be to take it up at the MCR article talk page, perhaps arguing that the source it uses isn't reliable or that it's WP:UNDUE to call them that when it's only the one source putting them in that category. That would have to happen first before they come off the list article. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot 29 November 2014

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have. Views/Day Quality Title Content Headings Images Links Sources Tagged with… 606 Media influence (talk) Add sources 263 Generative grammar (talk) Add sources 7 Music of Denver (talk) Add sources 152 Outline of science (talk) Add sources 204 TorChat (talk) Add sources 349 Psycholinguistics (talk) Add sources 287 Tails (operating system) (talk) Cleanup 134 KMPlayer (talk) Cleanup 9 Verbal language in dreams (talk) Cleanup 278 Portable media player (talk) Expand 14 Index of linguistics articles (talk) Expand 2,229 DuckDuckGo (talk) Expand 335 Operation Onymous (talk) Unencyclopaedic 163 Digital media player (talk) Unencyclopaedic 5,396 Linux (talk) Unencyclopaedic 116 Hardcore (electronic dance music genre) (talk) Merge 259 Pleonasm (talk) Merge 87 Terminal and nonterminal symbols (talk) Merge 18 Introduction to Kant's Anthropology (talk) Wikify 146 Goblin (band) (talk) Wikify 36 Peter Ludlow (talk) Wikify 8 Scarborough criterion (talk) Orphan 5 Junction Grammar (talk) Orphan 6 ESIEA (university) (talk) Orphan 103 Black Market Reloaded (talk) Stub 7 St. Mary Street/High Street (talk) Stub 2 Welaung language (talk) Stub 110 SecureDrop (talk) Stub 29 Patrick Pinney (talk) Stub 14 Grammatical construction (talk) Stub SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping! If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

FYI

Hi Rhodo, FYI in re: this comment, I believe the user might have pernicious motivations. They've created a few articles that have been deleted for being obvious hoaxes. I tried to vet some of their content at one article and it seemed like complete bollox. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I didn't see the articles he/she created, but I just got the sense that it was a fairly typical fan zeal sort of thing (mixed with competence issues). Thanks for the heads up, though -- will check back later. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia NYC Dec 4th Meeting

Hi User:Rhododendrites. It would be great to see you at the Dec 4th Wikimedia NYC Meeting- Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC. I'm sure many of us would be interested to hear more about your Wikipedia research as well! OR drohowa (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@OR drohowa and Pharos: I'm so glad I was able to attend (though disappointed I had to leave before dinner). Regarding hearing more about my research: while I've done some research and teaching with Wikipedia in the past, I'm not teaching currently, don't start with WikiEdu for another month, and am too early in my dissertation process to present anything. So my only purpose in attending was first just to check out what happens at one of these meetings (I was at Wikiconference but that's the extent of my WP involvement off-wiki), and also to discover other ways to get involved. I left with a page full of notes concerning the latter, so I'm happy. I noticed there were a number of events discussed that I hadn't heard about previously -- maybe because it's too early, but maybe because I'm not consistently looking in the right place. As far as I can tell, there's the Meta wiki page, there's the Wikipedia page, there's the meetup, and there are the discussion lists. For finding out about local events (I'm thinking anything NY Wikipedia related, even if not technically sponsored by Wikimedia NYC), what's the best place to look? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Rhododendrites so glad that you were able to make it. I keep documentation of the events I organize with METRO/Wikipedia here: Wikipedia:GLAM/Metropolitan New York Library Council. It would be nice to have a NYC newsletter. I also post month NYC updates in This Month in GLAM. If you have any more Wiki questions, feel free to email me at dhoward(at)metro.org, and make sure you are subscribed the the Wikimedia NYC "announce" list for event listings. Cheers! OR drohowa (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Help with Comparison of online backup services

Hi!

I've noted that you've edited the article "Comparison of online backup services". I'm not Wikipedia-editor-friend right now because the table editing system is terrible. I have some information regarding some free services. I'm looking for a free cloud provider that allow me to sync some specific folder in my computer and that do not force me to put my files somewhere (like Dropbox, GDrive, OneDrive,...). So I've been testing some of them and plan to test some more. I want to add that info to the table but can't edit that BIG table by hand because lack of time/knowledge. Do you want to help me?

Regards, Bactu (talk)

@Bactu: Hi, and sorry for taking a few days to respond. Tables are indeed a little messy. While I haven't used it much myself, I think there's a simplified way to use them with the Visual Editor (which you can enable in your preferences). WP:TEAHOUSE is a good place to ask questions about that sort of thing. As for adding the information, I'm unclear if you're looking to add it to existing columns or create a new column? Based on the way you're presenting this new information I have minor reservations about original research. Wikipedia has a policy of "no original research" in the sense that all material must be verifiable in reliable secondary sources. If the information you have is something you've obtained by your own means and is not otherwise available, it might not be appropriate to add. That said, it's only a minor reservation because the sort of information that goes in a table like this one (technical information or simple determinations of whether features do or do not exist) almost always exist somewhere (like in the company/service's website) and are not contentious. I only add the caveat because I'm not totally clear on what you're adding. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Hi! Visual Editor is buggy. I can't add a column without breaking the table with it. I thought of adding a column after Sync column but it doesn't work as expected because it breaks everything past that column, and moving all data by hand is kind of impossible for me right now. The data I plan to add is only one extra item in the list: "Can you add sync folders other than default?" Regarding the "No Original Research" it states: "...analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". It seems to me that this is more "opinion oriented" or "conclusion oriented" and the data I plan to add is "factical": can the program do this? It doesn't sound to me very different to "Maximum per-file size" column! Adn as you state, you can look for that data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bactu (talk • contribs) 14:31, 14 December 2014‎

@Bactu: The policy on no original research is an extension of one of the core principles, verifiability, which basically means that everything on Wikipedia must be "verifiable" in reliable secondary sources (it also touches on neutral point of view, but that's less relevant here). So it may be a fact that, for example, Bill Gates has a purple Maserati because I saw him drive it into his own garage (this is made up, by the way), but it might not be verifiable unless that fact has been published. But like I was saying, a software feature is kind of different.

Ok so two things:

First, content-related: I should tell you straight off that online backup services is not an area of expertise for me. I watch the page along with many other software and web-related list articles because they're particularly prone to spam. So I have to ask for clarification about what you mean by "sync folders other than the default"? Is another way to say that "sync multiple folders" [on your hard drive]? Or are you looking to sync to a web server that isn't necessarily tied to the domain name of the backup service?

Second, and more to the reason why you left the message to begin with, the table: Have you checked out Help:Table and/or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables? Those are the basic help pages for working with tables. They can still be tricky, though -- or if not tricky, tedious. Unfortunately I don't know of a better way than to...

extended example

add the column header to the top ! style="width:5%;"|[[File synchronization|Sync]]{{ref|7|7}} ! style="width:5%;"|Sync multiple folders ! style="width:5%;"|Autodetect changes{{ref|12|12}} (I omitted the ref because they're a mess and it would take much more time to figure out how best to incorporate that) Then count the columns to see that it would then be the 19th column (or 12th from the bottom). Then create a new cell for each and every entry in the list in that position like this for the first one: |- |[[Acronis]] | {{yes}} | {{no}} | {{no}} | {{no}} | | {{no}} | {{yes}} | {{no}} |? | {{yes|250 Gb}} | {{no}} | | {{yes}} |[[Acronis]] | {{no}} | {{no}} | {{yes}} | {{yes}} | | | | {{USA}}, {{EUR}} | {{no}} | {{yes|No limit}} | {{yes}} | | | {{no}} |[[Acronis]] |- You'll also have to update the headings that are repeated a few times throughout the list.

Sheesh as I go through the table/notes....it's kind of a mess, isn't it? I thought about breaking the table up into smaller ones myself (among other changes) but think I'll post to the talk page instead to see what thoughts other people have -- I'd encourage you to respond there. Sorry for my overly long response :)

BTW no need to ping me on my talk page (a new message already generates a notification) -- not that it does any harm, of course. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Biopower

Sir Rhododendrites With regards deletions of my Biopower edits it appears to some editors that I'm engaged in some kind of OR(Original research)excise almost as if I am making everything up from no where.I can assure you that I am not I read my sources very carefully I(where ever possible) try to ingrate unknown material to the reader with clarity and precision.Now that isn't my problem that some editors believe that my edits are of some dastardly plan(something out of a Hollywood movie) to subvert Wikipedia's OR and NOPV rule the whole point of my edits is to try and show(wherever possible) the world we live in isn't all as it seems(you know the one where the president of the USA for example just appears out of nothing with "universal admiration")there is a system at work it does function with or without human consent this system has an organization has an rational and above all else will continue in its current form indestructible to any rational gaze unless a sane rational gaze can 'get at its functioning'.Hopefully an enlighten approach will be enough to the job.Also I hasten to add not all humans are subjected to bias if these editors start to read some of the unknown material that I have in my possession they may change their minds.Kind regards Richardlord50 (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@Richardlord50: Hi. Let me first say thanks for spending so much time improving Foucault-related articles on Wikipedia -- I hope disputes with other editors don't cause you to stop doing so. I want to touch on three interconnected things that I hope will help, if you'll bear with me. I'm going to use this edit of yours as an example, but I think these two apply more broadly.

1. First the more superficial but still important issue. There are grammatical, spelling, and stylistic issues that run through your edits. While this is, of course, less important than making sure the statements are correct, sources are cited, etc. it gives the impression there may be other issues and some people feel more comfortable removing blocks of content if such errors exist. The most common one is not including a space between punctuation and the next word. Also, in the edit linked above a few examples:
   • changing "their" to "there"
   • sentence structure like "social project namely the Milieu" - needs rewording or a comma/dash between "project" and "namely")
   • "Foucault doesn’t mentions" - should be "mention"
   • "one key note thinker" - technically could be correct, but "key note thinker" is unusual
   • "...which forms a parallel with Foucault's own work an Medieval historian from this period;Ernst Kantorowicz gets a brief mention here." - missing the space between the semicolon and "Ernst", there needs to be a break between "work" and "an", semicolon should be a comma, and a comma should probably also follow "Kantorowicz"

   I'll stop there -- I'm just trying to give some examples, not nitpick. It would help to run these through a good spellchecker, proofread, or even have someone else proofread. Some people have difficulty with this sort of thing, which is understandable because it's a lot less interesting than actually writing about Foucault :) but it is important. Another approach may be to post your additions to the talk page first to get feedback, so we can catch these sorts of details before it goes into the article. Or, if you get to the point where grammar and style are the only issues such that the edits wouldn't be reverted, you could make the additions to the article and then add a note to the talk page saying "I added this paragraph, would someone mind doing a quick copyedit/proofread?"

2. The second issue is about style and tone. It's harder to explain succinctly, but basically Wikipedia strives for a particular style and tone of writing -- a formal tone typical for an encyclopedia. Taking a look at one of the featured articles should provide a good impression of encyclopedic tone. Wikipedia draws a distinction between the kind of material that's written here and that which is in a journal, newspaper, editorial, etc. Some examples will follow #3, which is intricately linked to the issues of style/tone.
3. The "original research" issue people have brought up doesn't necessarily mean you're making anything up, and in many cases it's just a matter of presentation (style/tone). You clearly cite sources to back up what you're saying, but it looks like you're offering explanations, drawing conclusions, or making connections that are not explicitly stated in the texts you're citing. A few examples from the same edits:
   • "How did the project milieu become interwoven into the political and social relations of men?Foucault takes as his starting point.." and then later "What general components that were essential and necessary to make this consensus happen?Foucault traces the first dynamics..." - A purely stylistic example. Using rhetorical questions in this way makes it sound like you're presenting a lecture yourself, offering your own explanation for something.
   • "Here the modern version of Government is presented in the national media." - use of "here" and this style of presentation makes it sound like you're offering your own narration of the work's contents
   • "While Foucault doesn’t mentions him by name one key note thinker which forms a parallel with Foucault’s own work an Medieval historian from this period;Ernst Kantorowicz gets a brief mention here." - This is a clear-cut example of original research as Wikipedia defines it. That doesn't mean it's wrong, incorrect, or insidious -- it just means that it is you that is drawing the parallel here. The article on biopower should bring together what reliable sources say about Biopower and should not contain our own interpretations, connections, etc. In other words, if you find journal articles in which people draw the parallel between Foucault and Kantorowicz, and if there's sufficient talk of the connection such that it's worth mentioning (as determined by the extent of coverage in those sources, not our own judgment of whether it's worth mentioning), then you could cite those for this kind of material.
   • "A Medieval triumvirate appears, a private enterprise of wealth and succession which required fractious co-operation, this co-operation was needed by the three groups in an uneasy Medieval alliance..." - Use of the word "appears" functions like "here" does elsewhere in suggesting original research. The rest of the paragraph that starts with Kantorowicz is missing an awful lot of sources, and what sources are cited are primary. At the risk of being redundant to the previous bulletpoint, the only time any of these matters should be included is if reliable secondary sources have already tied them together with Foucault and Biopower -- otherwise it's original research. Again, that doesn't mean it's bad, wrong, uninteresting, unimportant, etc. -- just that it's inappropriate for Wikipedia. That distinction between primary and secondary sources is key. It is not enough that primary sources talk about similar issues; there have to be secondary sources (from journals, magazines, books, etc.) that make the connections. It's worth noting that it works a little differently based on the subject of the article, however. Biopower is a concept closely identified with Foucault so it is not inappropriate to cite Foucault directly to summarize his use of the term. But "summarize" is the key to that -- summarize what he says, but for every instance where you want to interpret or explain anything that he doesn't explicitly state, a secondary source is required. Wikipedia is full of other people's interpretations, metaphors, analogies, syntheses, etc. rather than those of our editors.

This may be more of a response than you bargained for. My reason for the long-windedness is simple: I think you have something valuable to contribute to Wikipedia. Too often editors with knowledge on a given subject want to contribute to Wikipedia but become discouraged and eventually leave after having their work undone or after negative interactions with other editors. Happy to answer any questions/give feedback. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Sir Rhododendrites

Thanks for your comments and I hope your New Year is a prosperous one.With regards your comments I have taken notice of them the Kantorowicz source I managed to find from Foucault himself where he actually mentions Kantorowicz in Discipline and Punish I have placed them in the article. With regards the following: "A Medieval triumvirate appears, a private enterprise of wealth and succession which required fractious co-operation," I didn't meant it that way,a misinterpretation of sorts what I mean is this, the political hierarchy of the Medieval period owned much of its position primarily(but not exclusively) to the legal apparatus of the day.This was then cancelled because of there lack of resources to take on the new machinery of the state by the beginning of the 18th century (fully paid bureaucracy,GDP funding, national debt funding and security features like an defense budget) all of which have to be paid for through taxation which the previous hierarchy did not have the necessary resources which would cost them trillions in $ dollar terms.This is what I was trying to get across albeit in a slow and ad hoc way Enjoy the new year Richardlord50 (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot 13 December 2014

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have. Views/Day Quality Title Content Headings Images Links Sources Tagged with… 17 Shom-C (talk) Add sources 6,409 The Holocaust (talk) Add sources 165 Mount Diablo (talk) Add sources 183 Blasphemy law (talk) Add sources 43 Vidalia (software) (talk) Add sources 4,805 Proxy server (talk) Add sources 252 Roland Corporation (talk) Cleanup 125 Kathy Sierra (talk) Cleanup 11 Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (talk) Cleanup 179 Electronic musical instrument (talk) Expand 48 Prague school (talk) Expand 7 Index of cognitive science articles (talk) Expand 34 Wind controller (talk) Unencyclopaedic 241 Anaphora (linguistics) (talk) Unencyclopaedic 212 Electronic keyboard (talk) Unencyclopaedic 60 Formal semantics (logic) (talk) Merge 993 URI scheme (talk) Merge 46 Bullying in academia (talk) Merge 176 Frequency modulation synthesis (talk) Wikify 56 Uranium mining by country (talk) Wikify 145 Jason Wu (talk) Wikify 6 Cognitive sociolinguistics (talk) Orphan 21 Synaptop (talk) Orphan 9 Language and Communication Technologies (talk) Orphan 7 Robert Van Valin, Jr. (talk) Stub 19 Alex von Tunzelmann (talk) Stub 5 Bongaree, Queensland (talk) Stub 19 Brad Barr (talk) Stub 31 Conor Friedersdorf (talk) Stub 3,172 The Hidden Wiki (talk) Stub SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping! If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

List of hardcore punk bands

msg copied from User talk:73.193.195.69
Just a heads up that I reverted your last edit at List of hardcore punk bands which appeared to be edit warring over the inclusion of two bands. (Edit warring is not the cause for this message, though, and I recognize you were not the only party engaged therein). To put the issue of genres plainly: Wikipedia doesn't have any stake in what a band's "true" genre is. The only thing that matters is whether there exist reliable sources applying that label. In the case of Beartooth and Hatebreed, it appears those sources exist at the band articles. There is more nuance to how a band is categorized at the band's article, but for the purpose of inclusion in a list like that it's usually more basic. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, How is it going , Ok , Do you have any references from we'll start with SCREAMO beartooth ? I can't seem to see any references for them as hardcore Punk on the whole article and was wondering if you could share the ones you know of. 73.193.195.69 (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@73.193.195.69: - Hi. I hadn't checked out the sources themselves for Beartooth since the lead seems to call them hardcore punk categorically, and that is at least supposed to have basis in consensus among reliable sources. But just now I did check the sources just in case, and the following are those that seem to call it hardcore: interview with band member talking about it being hardcore, inspired by hardcore punk / hardcore ambitions isn't quite as explicit but taken with the others seems worth mentioning, Vans Warped Tour page, Ultimate Guitar review, and HM. While you can make the case at the Beartooth article talk page for the primary genre being changed, these sources are more than enough to include it in the list. Again, the truth of the genre is immaterial -- only sources matter. I'll add to this that I know nothing of Beartooth -- just looking at the sources at the article. Also, just googling "beartooth hardcore" returned a few on the very first page of ghits, including another relevant interview. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It actually is important . they aren't hardcore punk. You added a group you know nothing about . Awesome. 73.193.195.69 (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@73.193.195.69: I didn't say it's not important, but I'm sensing you're just not ok with the Wikipedia way of doing things (i.e. that reliable sources matter more than editor opinion even if the editor -- and this is why we are called editors rather than authors or experts -- is very familiar with the subject and knows the truth/fact of the matter). In that case I don't know what to tell you aside from the fact that doing things that way is why Wikipedia works at all (though isn't perfect, of course). For example, there are many, many people who come to Wikipedia to write about climate change from the perspective that it is not happening, unaffected by humans, etc. At least some of those people are absolutely certain their view is correct -- and there's no way to distinguish someone who's convicted vs. someone who's agenda-driven. But because Wikipedia doesn't really care about editor opinions and cares only what reliable sources say, the perspectives are not presented as equals because the vast majority of scientific research paints a different picture. If someone says "I know the truth" regarding any subject the response is "show us sources". Now, that's a flawed example here because I'm not trying to say that calling Beartooth definitively not hardcore is similar in any way to climate change denialism. It's furthermore a flawed example because the bar for climate change sources is far higher and more specific than that for musical genres and because inclusion on a list is far less stringent than inclusion of a particular position on a controversial article. Anyway, I'm happy to try to explain any aspect of Wikipedia policy, but not interested in getting into an actual genre discussion. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Where is there a Source , In their article thats reliable and calls them hardcore punk. An interview with the band is biased towards what ever someone wants to be perceived as, Un Unbuased source that states they are Hardcore Punk . I am interested in sources as you are 73.193.195.69 (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Linked above. I'm not certain what the precedent is for dealing with interviews when it comes to genre, but since they're not all interviews and because there are several sources (i.e. we're not relying on a single interview), it's fine to include on the list. I'm not looking to get into an argument about the reliability of all of these sources -- if you like you can take it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Music or, probably better, the reliable sources noticeboard. The point is, there are several sources calling them hardcore such that it's going to be an uphill battle to insist on their removal from a genre list, and edit warring to force the matter will only make people assume you're in the wrong (vs. going through typical channels) or, worse, get you blocked. That's not a threat -- I'm not even an admin who can do such a thing -- just again, how Wikipedia works. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, and I have now blocked him for edit warring. Just thought I'd give you heads up on that, as he's not handling it real well. Thank you for discussing this with him so calmly and thoroughly. He's been riling up a number of other editors due to not using/recognizing sources, and not interacting very civilly with others, so I appreciate you taking the time. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 15:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Your edits on TOR

Hey,

I am just wondering why did you remove all the useful informations on the page ?? The english page was so rich, now we have to switch between what you have done and the previous version.... Can you please undo all your modifications about circuit establishment and sending data please ?...

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.186.79.173 (talk) 11:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. You're referring to the onion routing article, right? I tried to get to everything that was originally covered, but in prose (WP:PROSE) rather than a technical outline and without the extended example. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia articles are generally supposed to be prose and state things as concisely as possible. The previous version had also been tagged as too complex/technical for a while. While some of that information like talking about relay cells and Diffie-Hellman handshakes can be useful to some, it's too technical for a general audience, which is what the article is supposed to be for (WP:TECHNICAL). Wikipedia doesn't try to cover every detail of technical papers but rather summarizes them for a general audience and links, where possible, to the original so that if someone wants more detail they can easily find it. So circuit establishment and sending data is there, just not in the same way. All that being said, maybe you can give me more specific examples of what you feel should be added back -- it's certainly possible I removed something important without realizing it, and it's also possible I didn't do a good job of summarizing. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply !

The interesting part I am talking about is the one about Establishing Circuit : indeed it could be confusing for a general audience but some people may look for some details without reading all the specific documentation ;)

I think the best way to mix both approches is to separate the article in 2 distinct part : one with general informations (like what you have done which is very clear) and an other one with details (what you have deleted actually) Fortunately for me I was able to find the old version with THE specific information I was looking for (how a node "remember" the way back to the sender)

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.78.129.192 (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@128.78.129.192: I'm glad you were able to find what you were looking for. I'd like to try to figure out how best to improve the article. We don't want to just re-present the same material twice at differing levels of complexity, so the ideal is to present a balance that addresses all of the major aspects of a subject, written so that a general audience can gain an understanding of the subject as a whole (while providing links to resources with more information -- papers, other wiki pages, etc. That doesn't mean we should include everything that's useful because too many things are "useful" to different people in different contexts. What matters is what's important (as determined by coverage in reliable sources combined with editors' judgment). All that being said, I think that what you're describing as how a node "remembers" may be one of those important things we should cover -- one which apparently I didn't properly get to in my rewrite. Can you think of a way to work that into the prose? Are there many other things you feel are important that I didn't address, or that I addressed insufficiently? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2014

• Arbitration report: Arbitration Committee election results

• Featured content: Tripping hither, tripping thither, Nobody knows why or whither; We must dance and we must sing, Round about our fairy ring!

• In the media: Wikipedia's year in review video; Checking in with Wikipedia's founders

• Traffic report: A December Lull

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

STS topic, review request

Dear Rhododendrites, I saw you had been active on Science, technology and society and I invite your comments or recommondations of reviewers on Draft:IPCC consensus. Greetings Serten II (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

PS.: Is there any active portal around? I have done the Reiner Grundmann entry and would like to network with others active in the field. Serten II (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Serten II: Hi there and thanks for working to build these articles. You are correct that I sometimes edit STS-related articles, but I'm afraid the two articles you're linking are not in my Wikiwheelhouse. More specifically, I tend to watch climate change-related articles but don't participate often (the subject is not one I would claim expertise in, and the Wikipedia side of it is complex, with lots of past rules/conversations to catch up on). I was going to link you to several relevant articles/venues, but it looks like you've made the rounds already :) I can't say I'm familiar with Grundmann, so can't give you feedback as to how the important aspects of the subject is covered. TL;DR: I don't think I can be much help to you, sorry :) --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The subject is deeply entrenched, as various people doubt that STS has a say on such matters at all. Lot of fresh air needed, or Ozone, as for Grundmann;) I am OK with your point made, but - as you watch the one or other article, please keep an eye open and allow for networking by just recommanding suitable authors. Thats said, have a good time. Serten II (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC) PS.: They must have told you rasther bad things about me ;)

Presuming the last comment concerns my post at Talk:Why I Am Not a Christian, I assure you nobody has told me anything, nor does one have to do with another. The essay's article just happens to be on my watchlist (and though contentious, not among the subjects, as with climate change, that I particularly shy away from). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Hidden service URLs

Is the contention that deepdotweb.org is not a reliable source a serious stance, or is it merely a pretense not to post hidden service URLs? It really seems like Wikipedia has just declared "the entire dark web is unreliable, as are all non-dark web sites that discuss it..." as an excuse to expunge details. 209.133.117.247 (talk) 04:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The first, primarily. But to address the second: The problem with these addresses -- which is also part of why they're useful -- is that there's no reliable registry like there is for a regular domain name. There's an argument to be had about the reliability of domain registration information, of course, but that, along with the lack of protection/recourse available to hidden site operators (domain name hijacking is a crime that can be pursued legally), make them tricky business to include. I'm not absolutely opposed to it, though -- we just need a source that meets standards for reliable sourcing (e.g. source with a reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, no user-generated content, etc.). But I admit I'm not familiar with deepdotweb. What about the site makes it reliable? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Stephen Gill Spottswood

Hi, I'm reviewing your article for DYK. At first I thought all the sources were offline, but then I found a lot of them online. Please remember to add URLs and ISBN or ISSN numbers to your reference formatting in the future. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Yoninah: You know, every time I see that something has a preview available on GBooks I tend to hesitate to link it unless the fulltext is available -- and I'm not entirely sure why. Anyway thanks for updating it and for the review. I actually submitted another DYK around the time you left this message. I suppose I should go back and add the GBooks links to it now :) --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good idea, as many reviewers aren't as thorough in checking for online verification. It's interesting that you think that way about full text; I often source my articles with any snippet of information I can pull off Google Books! Best, Yoninah (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Removals by Synthwave94

Would you be willing to restore the sources removed by Synthwave94 at Den Harrow also, I see you noticed that he/she unjustly removed sources from Baltimora. I personally should not restore them myself as that may appear as though I'm again involved in edit-warring for the same issue.--Harout72 (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@Harout72: Regardless of who's right, I'm not too keen on proxying edit wars. You might want to reach out to Bbb23, though, given that you're sticking to your side of the bargain and Synthwave.94 seems to have gone back to doing the same kind of thing that got him/her blocked a month ago. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh. Strike that. Already re-blocked. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@Harout72: I didn't revert on Den Harrow but did restore the removed sources while keeping the source synthwave.94 added. This isn't a taking sides thing -- it's just, for me, the most neutral way to leave it given the messiness of an edit war. See Talk:Den_Harrow#Genre. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I'm open to discussions with anyone who's willing to discuss the genres of Den Harrow as well as the reliability of sources.--Harout72 (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Stephen Gill Spottswood

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:DEADLINKSPAM

I'm contacting you because you commented on WT:WPSPAM#Spamming.

WP:DEADLINKSPAM is up and is now a centralized deadlink-replacing report. — Revi 14:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@-revi: Nice. Thanks for the heads up (and for setting up the page). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

It's been a while and I actually just thought of you! How have you been? How has it been with your work both in and out of Wikipedia? Have a Merry Christmas and a Prosperous New Year in Advance!! Eruditescholar (talk) 21:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Salon.com revisions call for a visit to the Argument Clinic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y David F (talk) 01:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ferrierd: I'm really pushing the limits of WP:AGF here, but because of course Salon is not a women's website any more than it is a music review site or a video game magazine, by edit warring over calling it that, you're [intentionally or not] vandalizing. Where is the confusion? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2014

• From the editor: Looking for new editors-in-chief

• In the media: Wales on GamerGate

• Featured content: Still quoting Iolanthe, apparently.

• WikiProject report: Microsoft does The Signpost

• Traffic report: North Korea is not pleased

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Claudio Fasoli

Claudio Fasoli is notable and I have cleared the discographies. Noteswork (talk) 05:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Responded in more detail at Talk:Claudio Fasoli, but in sum the only issue is that it was an article about a person which did not assert notability and existed only as a discography. CSD doesn't mean he's not notable -- just that it wasn't an appropriate encyclopedia article. Regardless, no complaints from me at the tag being removed. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot 27 December 2014

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have. Views/Day Quality Title Content Headings Images Links Sources Tagged with… 268 Trello (talk) Add sources 629 Gold as an investment (talk) Add sources 560 Freenet (talk) Add sources 309 Project management software (talk) Add sources 85 Individual voluntary arrangement (talk) Add sources 88 Turbowolf (talk) Add sources 156 Pro se legal representation in the United States (talk) Cleanup 27 Bankruptcy Law in the Republic of Ireland (talk) Cleanup 643 Robots exclusion standard (talk) Cleanup 91 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (talk) Expand 88 Chapter 9, Title 11, United States Code (talk) Expand 36 Republican Party of Florida (talk) Expand 360 Home Taping Is Killing Music (talk) Unencyclopaedic 426 Indian coal allocation scam (talk) Unencyclopaedic 1,012 Tax (talk) Unencyclopaedic 599 Adjusted gross income (talk) Merge 63 Mixed reality (talk) Merge 69 Direct Connect (protocol) (talk) Merge 279 Tax deduction (talk) Wikify 65 Shoutbox (talk) Wikify 56 United States trust law (talk) Wikify 11 Genius Project (talk) Orphan 3 Dana L. Cloud (talk) Orphan 4 Belarusian musical groups (talk) Orphan 38 Trustee in bankruptcy (talk) Stub 3 Base de datos (talk) Stub 13 Adversary proceeding in bankruptcy (United States) (talk) Stub 27 Creditor's rights (talk) Stub 19 Chapter 12, Title 11, United States Code (talk) Stub 39 Debtor in possession (talk) Stub SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping! If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Avril Lavigne (album)

I think Mendaliv has no time to editing. Actually there's several of questionable sources like Muumuse, hardrockhaven.net, etc. Can you remove please? 183.171.181.171 (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@183.171.181.171: I'm confused. I don't recall ever editing any Avril Lavigne-related article, but I do see someone with a similar IP left a similar request at WP:EAR a little while ago. From what I gather you're looking for someone to make the same edit Mendaliv did at that article? As I have no prior involvement or knowledge, I'm reluctant. Is there a reason you're asking me? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Tamashare Collaborative Software

Hi and thank you for your answer. I will create the standalone article about our services — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brudieux (talk • contribs) 09:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Brudieux: Hi there. If you haven't already, you'll probably want to take a look at Wikipedia:Your first article, which is a basic guide to creating your first article. A couple other important pages are WP:Notability, which is Wikipedia's quasi-objective measure of how important something is (in order to merit a stand-alone article) as well as WP:Conflict of interest (since you mentioned "our" services). Finally, I'd recommend creating your article in the Drafts namespace (creating, for example, Draft:A new topic as opposed to A new topic. Articles created in the main article space are more likely to be deleted for a variety of common errors which could otherwise be caught in the Draft space. Drafts, as suggested by their name, can then be moved to the article space whenever they're "ready". It can be a lot to digest, but I hope this helps. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Tamashare Collaborative Software

Thank you for your advise ! I've tried to begin to write a new article in the sandbox and I realized that there is so many links to make between words I wrote ! If you don't know very well html languages (like me), I'm not sure I will succeed to make a good article... For the moment, I will not investigate further even It seem to be a good opportunities for us to be known ;) Thanks again for your time. PS : if you are interested in testing our app for free, you're welcome (www.tamashare.com/download) BR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brudieux (talk • contribs) 15:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Djoir Article

Rhododendrites,

I noticed you had nominated the article Djoir for deletion. Can you please describe to me what the basis is for this request? The article is a work in progress and this is my first time writing an article so I apologize for any existing errors. I have included many publications (news, articles from Music Magazines such as All Access Music, and other references within Wikipedia itself). Thanks for helping to clarify your concerns and I will be happy to update the article to reflect such requests so the article is not deleted. Thanks for your help!

JC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carockstar (talk • contribs) 20:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Carockstar: Hi there and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. The deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Djoir, where a discussion will take place over the next 7 days. The rationale I gave there is this: "Seems to fail WP:BIO as well as any of the more specific biographical notability criteria. Some appearances in music videos, local competitions, etc. but there doesn't seem to be significant coverage (more than a mention) in multiple reliable sources. With the number of things she's involved with, I think this is just a case of WP:TOOSOON."

There's more information in the blue links above (WP: means it's pointing to a page about Wikipedia, like policies and guidelines). The big issue, though, is sources and what Wikipedia calls "notability", a quasi-objective measure of whether a subject should have a stand-alone article. Sources are important for two reasons: to back up what is said in the article and to demonstrate notability. To support a statement in the article, the source should be reliable and independent of the subject (because people say all sorts of things about themselves -- what matters is what other people say). To support notability, which is more important for the purpose of deletion, a subject must receive significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject.

At the time I nominated it for deletion, I went through every source: The first source is Twitter, both unreliable and primary; the next three go to the same AllAccess, which is easily the best source of the bunch and absolutely contributes to notability, although the content therein is primary as coming directly from her via an interview; the fifth and sixth are brief mentions that serve as evidence to support a statement but are only brief mentions and thus don't help notability; the seventh and eighth just promote events; the ninth, from Chumash Casino, is also a brief mention and while it's better than some of the others, it would be better to have a reliable external source write about an event at the Casino than to use what the Casino wrote about its own event; the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth sources are just music videos; the thirteenth is the other decent source, though it's local; the fourteenth/final source again says nothing about the subject and just backs up something that's said in the text.

As I said in the deletion rationale, since she's involved in so much this is probably a case of WP:TOOSOON (someone that will probably be notable, but is not yet).

Let me know if you have any other questions and feel free to weigh in at the AfD discussion. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites:,

Thank you for your quick response. I will work on updating your requests above as there are other sources I can cite as well. The twitter account was simply a way to identify her because of her birth name being Dawn Jordan. The IMDB references were removed by a robot a couple of days ago, but it credits here with multiple music and film credits. I can add those back in but I fear they will be removed again? I noticed in the "notability" reference, she does in fact meet the criteria therein by having external independent articles written about Djoir. These are other aspects of the individual's life, however, the largest and most notable credits to Dawn "Djoir" Jordan are in fact her 4.5 years as a cast member of the TV show "Colby's Clubhouse" in which she made appearances in countless episodes as a main character. In fact, she even had an episode "Dawn's Reputation" written about her and referenced at Colby's Clubhouse. Also fellow cast members Krysta Rodriguez and Casey Lagos are also referenced on Wikipedia. In fact, Casey Lagos was only on the show for less than one year, versus that of Djoir who was on for 4.5 years. I apologize for my lack of experience writing Wikipedia articles, but this is my first time. Please remove the deletion request, I will work on citing more references and adding in more content.

Thanks again! JC

This is all good, but what we need are sources writing about these things. IMDB is unreliable as user-generated content, but even if it were reliable it would only show that something was the case. That doesn't help. That she did something, was on a tv show, etc. is less important than articles and other material about her. An article that talks about her role on a show rather than something that says she was on it. Lots of people who have been on tv shows, release music, etc. have sources that support these accomplishments, but lack sources about themselves as a subject. Most people on TV and most recording musicians are not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. What you need to do at this point is focus on pasting some links to sources at the AfD discussion -- doesn't matter if they're incorporated into the article yet. If the sources can be shown to exist, that's all that's necessary; they can be added to the article later. Again, the sources need to be both reliable and about her, not just a mention of her in connection to an event/contest/show/music video. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites:,

You got it, I'll update the AfD discussion. I will post links to articles as you mentioned (I know there are quite a few about her on Colby's Clubhouse at a minimum). Please remove the deletion request if I can update these sources to satisfy (above). Thanks again Rhododendrites for all your help on this.

Sounds good. AfD is not a kind of deletion proposal that can just be removed -- it'll go through a week of discussion before an administrator closes the discussion and determines whether there is consensus to delete it -- at that point the notice will be removed. If you post sufficient sources, however, there won't be any reason for participants to recommend deletion. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up: You may want to take a look at WP:Deletion process for an overview of how deletion works. I see that you added several sources. I moved them to the bottom of the page (where new comments go) and added your signature. Remember to sign messages when you add them to a discussion page (there's a link above your text editor, but simply ending your message with four tildes (~~~~) will automatically generate a timestamped signature. It's easy enough to tell who wrote what when there are only a couple people talking, but some threads attract dozens of people. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

Hi there - Yes, that's next on my list of additions to the page creation that will link from this page. I am in the process of adding the citations of links to the providers supported. thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sduffy34 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sduffy34: You're talking about adding Intronis to Comparison of online backup services, right? The basic rule of thumb for additions to list article is to write the article first. Since Wikipedia is not a place for promotion or a software directory, the vast majority of software/product/company-related lists are only for those notable enough for a stand-alone article. I noticed there is no Intronis article, so removed it. If you have questions about how any of this works, feel free to ask. You may also want to click the various bluelinks in this response, which link to Wikipedia policies and guidelines with more information. Thanks. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)