User talk:Mr rnddude/Archive 9

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

Hello, Mr rnddude. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Mr rnddude: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

• Hi Winkelvi, thank you for the holiday cheer and I hope you have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. :) Mr rnddude (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Mr rnddude,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

You shouldn't NAC any discussion other than a deletion one. In fact the template is only for deletion discussions, where a NAC sometimes has relevance. (This doesn't mean you cant close any discussion, only that you don't need to use the template unless its a deletion one) Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Only in death, I just followed other people's example on that one since many non-admins plant the NAC closure template onto AN/I and AN threads they close so that others reading them are aware. I don't mind not using it if it's preferred, I forget to add it on occasion as it is anyway. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Hence my 'what some people might think'. Don't get fooled into following bad habits just because they are widespread ;) No one is going to take issue one way or another unless you fail to add it at a deletion discussion, just thought I would let you know its not necessary. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

In desperate attempts to smear Scarborough, when the article inclusion failed, they created a biography article on Lori Klausutis and then linked to it from Scarborough. This is the springboard and some of the origins of BLP policy. The article was deleted and Jimbo weighed in. As I pointed out, Trump has tweeted on Vince Foster being murdered by the Clintons as well. There is a reason why it isn't in Clintons biography. It is exactly for BLP reasons. When deaths aren't related to the subject of the biography, it's a huge problem to point to tweets/statements/etc that link them to death in any way. trumps tweet did not speak to anything related to Scarborough at that is what the WaPo article unequivocally stated. Scarborough was not involved in that death in any way so the tweet by Trump deserves no space in his bio. POV warriors wil use these springboards to add detail that soon overwhelms the biography. Ted Cruz's father was not involved in the JFK assassination. Clinton did not murder Vince Foster. Even neutrally worded "Trump tweeted a false conspiracy theory regarding ..." opens the Pandora's box of detail about an event that reliable sources all say are unrelated to the subject of the BLP. --DHeyward (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pyramid of Neferirkare, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ka (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pyramid of Neferirkare you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iry-Hor -- Iry-Hor (talk) 13:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pyramid of Nyuserre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Middle Kingdom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The article Pyramid of Neferirkare you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pyramid of Neferirkare for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iry-Hor -- Iry-Hor (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Iry-Hor you have my sincerest thanks. Your review gives me a better view of the less obvious details that need to be addressed. I'll be doing some digging and cleaning before I go for FA first, but, I do intend to aim for it. I might nominate the article for DYK too. In fact, Pyramid of Nyuserre has just been approved for DYK, though it'll be a while before it's listed. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Well then perhaps we will be able to include pyramids in the FA topics I am preparing on the Fifth Dynasty. My idea is to FA all 9 pharaohs of this dynasty (nearly there!), and then use the knowledge acquired while writing these articles to write an FA on Fifth Dynasty of Egypt (with sections on the evolution of the administration, reforms, evolution of the religions, arts, pyramid construction techniques etc.), leading to a 10 articles all featured topic. We could include 5th Dynasty pyramids as well provided they reach FA. There are 8 such pyramids (because Shepseskare has no pyramid) so that represents a lot of work.Iry-Hor (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Iry-Hor: Well, I'm not promising anything, but, I am enjoying working on these pyramids. The eight pyramids in order of reign are:
Pyramid of Userkaf (GA)
Pyramid of Sahure
Pyramid of Neferirkare (GA)
Pyramid of Neferefre (WiP)
Pyramid of Nyuserre (GAN)
Pyramid of Menkauhor
Pyramid of Djedkare Isesi, and
Pyramid of Unas
what about the unfinished pyramid of Abusir?
Speculative Pyramid of Shepseskare
I hope to bring Pyramid of Nyuserre up to GA next. Then I plan to work on either Neferefre's pyramid (which was submitted to GA several years ago) or Sahura's pyramid (which has a solid foundation to go off of). I'll be leaving random bits and pieces in my sandbox for various articles. I have the administration changes from Fourth to Fifth Dynasty in there. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes I had forgotten that which possibly belongs to Shepseskare, ideally it would be included but it is clearly the least important of the nine. That's a lot of work anyway! Also, I have put up Neferirkare Kakai at FAC.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Iry-Hor, I agree that Shepseskare's speculative pyramid is the least important. I'll take a look at the FAC either today or tomorrow. For a second I thought you meant the pyramid article. I'll do a final run through of the article just for any bits of prose that I may have missed or that stick out. Otherwise I'm ready to support, I did the GA review after all. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. About the pyramids, you will see that the pyramid of Sahure failed at GA a couple of times. Although this was mostly because I did not have the time to address the comments in one case, and in another because the reviewer thought it was original research to point out that the ground was black on a picture (no joke); the main issue according to one reviewer was that the article is over-long. It may need some synthetizing. It was after failing to GA this that I moved my focus to pharaohs.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, you've had better luck with the pharaohs than they pyramids as I see it Iry-Hor. I don't see how Sahura's pyramid article could be overlong, it's a good 10k bytes shorter than Neferirkare's. It's only about 3000 words long too, that's about the standard length of a high school assignment. I've had to write, and I'm not joking, a longer piece of prose on water in 8th Grade. I didn't even know what to do with it. "Water is a molecule. It is constructed by putting together 2 hydrogen atoms with an oxygen atom. These atoms are arranged into bonds ... water makes up around two thirds of the Earth's surface. Water can be found in oceans, lakes, rivers, ponds, etc, etc". And this went on and on for about 5,000 words. I don't... how do you even write 5,000 words about water. *Looks at Wikipedia article and realizes that it's significantly longer than 5,000 words... copies Wikipedia article and presents it as homework... doesn't even bother to do the proper attribution* Mr rnddude (talk) 09:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Aha I had a good laugh reading you! For Sahure's pyramid it might be worth taking a look at the failed GA reviews to see what could be improved. That said, it was in 2012 & 2013, when I had just started Wikipedia.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Well, Iry-Hor, I pulled the trigger and did the FAC nom. I did a final round of prose clean up and added alt texts for all the images. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Nice! I will shortly do a review myself to see if I can add something and this way I can complete the source spotcheck which is necessary for promotion.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

This was the best, most well thought out post I've seen in a long time. You have your email disabled, otherwise I'd have said this privately, but I had to say it as a mark of my appreciation. You even managed to get an expletive in, in my honour. lol Cassianto^Talk 21:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Cassianto, I didn't realize it was disabled. You tried e-mailing me via Special:EMailUser? cause it let me e-mail myself. My e-mail is [email protected] (no caps) for future reference if you need it. Thanks for the message. I was working on an article – something I know you'd prefer to be doing right now – and just saw everything play out through my watchlist. It boggled my mind. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I see that you joined in the discussion about my article up for deletion, you came to my defense by saying that I was an experienced editor. I may start making independent wiki articles when I can, but believe me I do feel harassed big time. Can you please help me out with my situation? If so I will let you know how you can help me. Davidgoodheart (talk) 09:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Davidgoodheart - I didn't come to your defense, but, I did indeed say you were an experienced editor. Cullen mistakenly assumed that this was an issue of a new editor feeling pressured after trying to contribute to the encyclopedia. I've seen this play out many times before so I'm not surprised he made this mistake.
  You would require serious evidence to substantiate your allegation of harassment. That evidence shouldn't be presented to me, I don't have any administrative power and thereby cannot "help" you in any tangible way, but it should be presented either to an impartial admin or at a community discussion venue (AN/I in this case). I would highly suggest taking it to an impartial admin as they will resolve it more quickly than a community discussion board. More importantly you won't need to deal with a barrage of editors posting mostly tangential comments and complaints, and you're less likely to cause yourself trouble. Coincidentally, Cullen328 is an impartial admin. If you are serious about the harassment claims, consider taking your evidence and presenting it to him. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Pyramid of Nyuserre at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 17, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

On 4 February 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pyramid of Nyuserre, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that before one pharaoh could construct his own monument, the Pyramid of Nyuserre, he had to complete the three monuments to his mother, father, and elder brother? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pyramid of Nyuserre. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Pyramid of Nyuserre), 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) 00:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mr rnddude, I saw your inquiry at Coffee's talk page regarding their sockpuppetry block of Davey2116. Coffee noted that they would respond by email. I see that Coffee's taking a break from Wikipedia at the moment, so if you have a chance, could you forward the email to me? (If you don't have it, don't worry about it; I'll ask Coffee when they return from their wikibreak.) Thanks! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry L235, but I never received an e-mail from Coffee regarding the block. I believe that's as a result of their break, rather than them intentionally ducking responsibility on it. Is ARBCOM having a discussion about their conduct, or is something else up? Mr rnddude (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh, no, nothing like that – I was asking solely in my personal capacity. Thanks! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
    • L235, well I'll let you know if the get back to me. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

On 15 February 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pyramid of Neferirkare, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Fifth Dynasty Pyramid of Neferirkare (pictured) was originally conceived as a step pyramid, a design which had been deprecated at the end of the Third Dynasty more than a century prior? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pyramid of Neferirkare. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Pyramid of Neferirkare), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• This may be useful for comparison across a wide range of edits/discussions. You'll have to go back 3 or four steps in its history to see the text: Talk:Bengal famine of 1943/attribution.. text is here] Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Lingzhi: That's a copy of the article from before the major edit-copy project started, yes? that will be very helpful for confirming what material comes from where. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes I do realize the dead are victims, but the victims section is there in infobox for other victims. The deaths are listed right above it clearly. There is a discussion in the talk page that you can participate in, as I am not going to do it through edit comments. We do not have a number for total injured, we have an amount of people that were sent to hospital. Others may have been treated on scene, but we don't have those facts at the time. Its part of the reason why I suggested using victims until we have more details from officials. In future please participate in ongoing talk page discussions before simply reverting. WikiVirusC^(talk) 02:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• WikiVirusC, I don't need to leave a comment on the talk page to revert a clearly erroneous edit. The article clearly states "At least 14 hospitalized". And if you realize that the dead are also victims, why reinstate a blatant error into the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

  17 dead, 14 hospitalized (other) victims. That is not a blatant error, I clearly said it was other victims. They are all victims, but the hospitlized victims aren't the only non-fatal injuries, people were treated on scene, so why is ignoring that fact treated as not erroneous to you. WikiVirusC^(talk) 03:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

  WikiVirusC The parameter isn't "other victims" though is it. And why are we having this conversation on my talk page, you can ping me to the article talk if you really need me. I clearly have the page on my watchlist as I've already left two comments there (1 previous in another section). As to why it's not an error... I'll concede the point. Do we have a number for all injured parties? because those should be added into the "injuries" section if we can get them. The victims parameter is used as a replacement for both deaths and injuries, or when there were no deaths or injuries but still victims (i.e. hostage situations). Mr rnddude (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

  I put the first comment here because you simply ignored the talk page when I mentioned it in my edit comments. I replied here to your replies, just as I did to yours on the talk page. The other victims is implied when it has Deaths (and injuries if used), directly above it. The point wasn't to use victims instead of injuries permanently, it was to use it until we got the complete details on all injuries. I assume Scott and Isreal will have a detailed press conference tomorrow. I'm not changing anything anymore, will just let the article be whatever until we get that tomorrow. It's not a serious issue one way or the other, I was just trying to address the concern brought up on the talk page about the inaccuracies of the phrasing non-fatal injuries, throughout early reporting. Anyways will stay on article talk page now. WikiVirusC^(talk) 03:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

  Acutally WikiVirusC when you put deaths = 17, and victims = 14, what that implies is that three of the dead aren't victims (e.g. perps), and not that there are 31 victims. If the context wasn't there I would have reverted and kept it reverted. I'll be moving to article talk page from here, however, you can leave me comments on my talk page. I just found it strange that you wouldn't ping me to the talk page. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)