User talk:Neelix/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Neelix. 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.

Thanks for the barnstar, I really appreciate it; hopefully I can re-nominate Casting Crowns after I find someone to copy-edit it. I think it was really close to passing so hopefully the sandbox fixes that. :) Toa Nidhiki05 14:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand you prefer to keep these articles as redirects. However, if you are going to do that, it would really be an excellent demonstration of helpfulness if you were to merge in the content from the independent sources. See, for example, what I've just done with Sturm Brightblade. Even if you still disagree that the articles meet WP:GNG, new, secondary sources have been added, and they shouldn't be discarded with the redirects. Thanks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion; I have followed it. Neelix (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Dragonlance characters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Neraka (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The article Refulgence has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced description of use of this single word in one context, the Bible. No evidence of notability: it's a word, it has several meanings (OED gives "The quality or fact of being refulgent; brilliance, radiance, lustrousness; splendour, glory; (occas.) an instance of this."), no scope for an encyclopedia article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

• Yes, I can see you only made a redirect - will copy the above to the talk page of the newbie editor who has just upgraded it to a stub. PamD 16:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PamD 16:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The above explanation doesn't quite identify why we shouldn't have an article, and perhaps not even a redirect, for the word "refulgence". Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is important—one of the fundamental foundation policies that defines what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia articles are about things, not the words that describe them. In contrast, our sister project, Wiktionary, is a dictionary: its articles are about words. Wiktionary has articles on refulgence and refulgent.

The article Radiance is a bad target for a redirect in this case. If you look at the article, you will see that it is about a very specific technical concept—a quantity measured in the field of photometry. Unless you have a source that shows that the term refulgence is sometimes used for this specific technical concept, the redirect is not appropriate.

I'll see if I can find a better redirect target for "refulgence". If not, I'll propose deletion.--Srleffler (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi! You're getting this message because you are or have been a Wikipedia Ambassador. A new term is beginning for the United States and Canada Education Programs, and I wanted to give you an update on some important new information if you're interested in continuing your work this term as a Wikipedia Ambassador.

You may have heard a reference to a transition the education program is going through. This is the last term that the Wikimedia Foundation will directly run the U.S. and Canada programs; beginning in June, a proposed thematic organization is likely to take over organizing the program. You can read more about the proposal here.

Another major change in the program will take effect immediately. Beginning this term, a new MediaWiki education extension will replace all course pages and Ambassador lists. (See Wikipedia:Course pages and Help:Education Program extension for more details.) Included in the extension are online volunteer and campus volunteer user rights, which let you create and edit course pages and sign up as an ambassador for a particular course.

If you would like to continue serving as a Wikipedia Ambassador — even if you do not support a class this term — you must create an ambassador profile. If you're no longer interested in being a Wikipedia Ambassador, you don't need to do anything.

Please do these steps as soon as possible

First, you need the relevant user rights for Online and/or Campus Ambassadors. (If you are an admin, you can grant the rights yourself, for you as well as other ambassadors.) Just post your rights request here, and we'll get you set up as quickly as possible.

Once you've got the ambassador rights, please set up at a Campus and/or Online Ambassador profile. You can do so at:

• Special:CampusAmbassadorProfile
• Special:OnlineAmbassadorProfile

Going forward, the lists of Ambassadors at Special:CampusAmbassadors and Special:OnlineAmbassadors will be the official roster of who is an active Ambassador. If you would like to be an Ambassador but not ready to serve this term, you can un-check the option in your profile to publicly list it (which will remove your profile from the list).

After that, you can sign on to support courses. The list of courses will be at Special:Courses. (By default, this lists "Current" courses, but you can change the Status filter to "Planned" to see courses for this term that haven't reached their listed start date yet.)

As this is the first term we have used the extension, we know there will be some bugs, and we know the feature set is not as rich as it could be. (A big wave of improvements is already in the pipeline. And if you know MediaWiki and could help with code review, we'd love to have your help!) Please reach out to me (Sage Ross) with any complaints, bug reports, and feature suggestions. The basic features of the extension are documented at Wikipedia:Course pages, and you can see a tutorial for setting up and using them here.

Communication and keeping up to date

In the past, the Education Program has had a pretty fragmented set of communication channels. We're trying to fix that. These are the recommended places to discuss and stay up-to-date on the education program:

1. The education noticeboard has become the main on-wiki location for discussion of the Education Program. You can post there about broad education program issues as well as issues with individual courses.
2. The Ambassadors Announce email list is a very low-traffic announcements list of important information all Ambassadors need to be aware of. We encourage all Ambassadors (and other interested Wikipedians) to subscribe to the list; follow the instructions on the link to add your email address.
3. If you use IRC regularly, or need to try to reach someone immediately, the #wikipedia-en-ambassadors ^connect IRC channel is the place to find me and fellow Ambassadors.

Ambassador training and resources

We now have an online training for Ambassadors, which is intended to be both an orientation about the Wikipedia Ambassador role for newcomers and the manual for how to do the role. (There are parallel trainings for students and for educators as well.)

Please go through the training if you feel like you need a refresher on how a typical class is supposed to go and where the Ambassadors fit in, or if you want to review and help improve it. If there's something you'd like to see added, or other suggestions you have for it, feel free to edit the training and/or leave feedback. A primer on setting up and using course pages is included in the educators' training.

The Resources page of the training is the main place for Ambassador-related resources. If there's something you think is important as a resource that's not on there, please add it.

Finally, whether or not you work with any classes this term, I encourage you to post entries to the Trophy Case whenever you see excellent work from students or if you have great examples from past semesters. And, as always, let students (and other editors!) know when they do things well; a little WikiLove goes a long way!

--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Neelix, I'm beginning the copy-edit you requested for the above article at the GOCE Request page. Please feel free to contact me, or to correct or revert my edits if I'm doing something I shouldn't. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm declaring the copy-edit Done now. I recommend getting the article Peer Reviewed before re-nominating the article for FA status - and I think it would easily meet the GA criteria, so a GA nomination would probably be a good step towards achieving FA status. Anyway, feel free to contact me about any issues arising from the copy-edit, and good luck with your planned nomination. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, what a weird coincidence, we both went to review the pregnancy from rape article at the same time. Fortunately we see eye to eye, otherwise that could have been awkward! I thought your review was very fair and reasonable and brought up a lot of the same problems I had seen. I just added my review as comments on the talk page, hopefully they will be useful for improving the article. Peace, delldot ∇. 03:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your review of Pregnancy from rape. While you failed the article, your review offers a clear path forward in improving the article. Casprings (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Neelix. It appears that no one informed you that this article you created was nominated for deletion. Regards, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I dislike being the bearer of bad news, and so am doing it personally rather than via template message, but it appears that several files you uploaded may not meet the requirements for free media, namely the series of pictures from Disneyworld depicting statues. The discussions will be going on here: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 February 9. While the photos themselves are very above-board, the issue is that under American copyright law, photos of copyrighted statues require the permission of the copyright holder for the statue; the release of the photographer with respect to the photo is not sufficient. That said, if you can think of a good fair-use argument and use for them, please go for it. Good luck, and thanks for all your work! Morgan Riley (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

		A beer on me!
		I feel terrible for putting you through this, as it looks like you had quite a bit of fun taking them (and I was able to see a place I have never been before). Hopefully a tad of bitter might make it a tad better! Morgan Riley (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on List of one-time characters in Futurama, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Michaelm55 (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, regarding this, I tried a Google News search, but the only hit I get is this very WP page. What am I missing? Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Randy,

Try searching the Google News archives. There should be three hits other than the Wikipedia article. There are also some Google Books hits. If you still think the journal is not notable, I would recommend initiating an AfD.

Neelix (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, I feel a bit stupid, but although I know how to do a GNews search, I can't find the archives... Can you perhaps give me a link to the search results that you get? Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Randy,

Here's the link you asked for: [1]. Here is the Google Books search as well: [2].

Neelix (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! You're right, that's enough to decline a PROD. I don't think it's enough for notability, so I'll take it to AfD and we'll see what the discussion there gives. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 08:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The article Swing boat has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced with no proof of notability. Better off merged into Pirate ship (ride).

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Astros4477 (Talk) 01:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated. The series of TFAs seems to have pleased more people than it annoyed, anyway... Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 09:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jerusalem Institute of Justice, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attorney (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed your recent work changing all the Aurora Award-related links. I understand that "Prix Aurora Awards" is the full name of the awards; however, the WP:COMMONNAME very definitely remains the "Aurora Awards". Even the organisation itself usually drops the "Prix" when referring to itself. I am not going to change anything you have done, but I think you might want to give this some consideration before blasting full steam ahead. Right now we have an award nobody has ever heard of occupying the common name title of an internationally-renowned award. Surely a DAB page would've been better? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for replying to my note. My concern is that the "Aurora Awards" is not well-known (you have to pay to enter and then pay for the award!), whereas the "Prix Aurora Awards" are highly-coveted awards of international renown that are commonly referred to as the "Aurora Awards" or the "Auroras". Almost nobody uses the "Prix", in fact. I will give it a little bit of thought, but I'm almost certainly going to initiate a move discussion over this. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Neelix. I hastily reverted your hatnote change but should have talked to you about it first. I've been mediating at this article on and off since 2009. The Aesthetic Realism article has had all of the controversy of most alleged cults/new religious movements and we've kept a delicate balance at that article by being pretty careful about phrasing. Which is why your 'without artificiality' seemed a bit POV for this article. I recognize completely that Aesthetic Realism's theory of aesthetics is very fringe compared to mainstream scholarship; still, do you think we can come up with a more neutral hatnote? Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Neelix. Aside from some varying preferences on links in hatnotes, I think we have the same goal. The group Aesthetic Realism has 'claimed' the term in a way that suggests that its view of aesthetics is realism, whereas it's actually quite a minor offshoot of that view. My concern is making sure that the reader knows this is a very narrowly scoped article and that the general subjects on aesthetics, realism in the arts, and realism in general are not at that page but elsewhere. Do you have suggestions on how we can accomplish that--not confuse the reader, but also not overlink? I've gone ahead and shortened the hatnote as a first step. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I see your points, and I had not previously read WP:PTM. Yet, I'm still also thinking about my main priority, which is to make sure the reader doesn't think "Aesthetic Realism" is the main subject in either realist aesthetics or the aesthetics of realism, when in fact it's just a very particular philosophy which bears a similar name. As was previously researched at this article, the term "aesthetic realism" can actually refer to 3 separate concepts/schools of thoughts, two of which are quite well established in mainstream philosophy and art: [3]. In my understanding, part of the purpose of hatnote disambiguation is to make sure the reader is in the place they want to be and not mislead by a mere similarity or relationship in names. I'm still not sure how best to accomplish this without it seeming to rely on partial title matches. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 22:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

No objections, I think that's a great plan and I'll pitch in where I can given my admittedly limited philosophy background. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect My Master. Since you had some involvement with the My Master redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Tito Dutta (contact) 23:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

		The Human Rights Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring She Has a Name to Good Article status. Thanks from WikiProject Human rights-- and keep up the good work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Khazar,

Thank you very much! It is good to know that there are other Wikipedians interested in working on human-rights-related articles. If you are interested in more discussion about the She Has a Name articles, 2012 tour of She Has a Name is currently up for featured article candidacy here.

Neelix (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. I generally don't get involved over at FAC, but I'll be watching that one and cheering for it! Good luck -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

You declined the PROD based on the fact that a speedy had been previously contested? PRODs are invalid when a previous PROD has been declined or contested, but that does not apply to CSDs as far as I know? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Free Range Frog,

That isn't how I interpret our deletion policy; as far as I understand the policy, all deletions that anyone objects to for any reason must go to AfD if the deletion is to be pursued. If someone declined the speedy deletion, they effectively objected to the deletion. If you can find a place in Wikipedia policy or guidelines stating that failed speedy deletions can be validly followed by proposed deletions, I would be glad to avoid declining such articles for that reason in the future.

Neelix (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I tend to disagree. In the "Before nomination" section, WP:PROD states that an article is eligible for PROD when (it) has not previously been proposed for deletion. I see proposed as distinct from speedy deletion (because that is what the deletion method is called), and in my experience following a contested or declined speedy with a PROD is perfectly valid. If that exception had been drafted with speedy deletions in mind, it would make that clear, and indeed there is an explicit exception for AFDs in the third point. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It an edit summary for the article Visual Novel Database when you removed the prod tag, you argued, "deletion of the article has already been contested by the declining of the speedy deletion; the article is not eligible for a proposed deletion. Pursue AfD if you believe the article should be deleted". Now, I was the one who declined the speedy, and I have known perfectly well it was at Prod, for I patrol Prod every day if possible, and I did not remove it. The reason I didn't do it because I personally have tried and failed to find references, and I accept the principle that without them, it cannot stay in WP; my thinking it important is not sufficient. There is no such rule as you indicate: I and other people decline many articles at speedy, and put a considerable number of them on prod. I will do this in a case where I think there is a claim to some importance, but not notability, and the author is unlikely to contest it. Speedy is a very low bar. Many things are specifically barred from speedy A7 that are not barred from prod--books, for example, or breeds of animals, or products. They of course can fall under speedy G11 or G12, but G11 requires being totally promotional, and I could change a G11 to a prod as something promotional enough to be deleted, even if not totally promotional. And so on. I shall say at AfD that I know it's immportant, but I couldn't find acceptable sources. DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of the article List of Canadian Victoria Cross recipients know that it will be appearing as the main page featured list on March 11, 2013. You can view the TFL blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/March 11, 2013. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured list directors The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) or Giants2008 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. Thanks! Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 11:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Ninety-four Canadians, or people closely associated with Canada, have been awarded the Victoria Cross, the highest war honour of the British Empire and the Commonwealth of Nations, for extraordinary valour and devotion to duty while facing a hostile force. The first Canadian to be awarded the Victoria Cross was Alexander Roberts Dunn, for his actions at the Battle of Balaclava (part of the Crimean War) in 1854. Seventy-one Victoria Crosses were awarded to Canadians for their actions in the First World War, and sixteen medals were awarded during the Second World War. William Hall (pictured), a Nova Scotian, was the first black recipient of the Victoria Cross. The last living Canadian recipient, "Smokey" Smith, died in August 2005. The Victoria Cross was last awarded to a Canadian in 1945. Canadians have not been eligible for the British Victoria Cross since 1993, when it was replaced by a new Canadian Victoria Cross, which has yet to be awarded.

Hi Neelix, fancy pulling together a nomination for Foot in Mouth Award? I think it's in good shape an would make a nice 1 April TFL... what do you reckon? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to copyedit the article, since it's on the GOCE requests page. Since you're still adding material, please do so by section (instead of editing the entire article) to minimize edit conflicts; I copyedit articles section by section from the beginning, so you'll know from the edit history where I'll be next. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 13:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Miniapolis,

My apologies. I am not adding any new material; I saw the changes you made to the lead and thought I would help out by making the rest of the article consistent with those changes. I will hold off from editing the article further until you have finished the copyedit. Thank you for undertaking it.

Neelix (talk) 13:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Neelix. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Kellie Loder at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Very nice article; good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 19:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The main editor worked on the three articles with a view to running them together today, as it's a significant anniversary. Normal TFAR instructions are for exceptional requests to go to Raul's talk page for him to make a decision; it went to Raul's talk page but he is currently inactive, so it was nominated and discussed at TFAR and in Raul's absence (and in the absence of opposition) I scheduled it. It has the advantage of getting some very closely related articles out of the way in one hit, rather than having to string them out over a few years. I have a couple of vague thoughts as to other connected groups of articles that could be chosen to run together but I don't anticipate or intend it becoming a regular feature, otherwise the novelty factor wears off. Hope this explains it. Bencherlite^Talk 09:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, nice job on When God Writes Your Love Story. I'm amazed at all the sourcing you found. I wrote articles on Eric and Leslie Ludy and didn't find nearly that many. However, I was reading through the article and I noticed that the "Critical response" section of the article is longer than the rest of the article combined. Based on WP:UNDUE, I wonder if some of the section is even necessary? In essence:

In Making Chastity Sexy: The Rhetoric of Evangelical Abstinence Campaigns, Christine Gardner recounts stories from interviews that she conducted while studying the persuasiveness of Evangelical sexual abstinence teachings. One of the people she interviewed was a twenty-two-year-old woman who referred to When God Writes Your Love Story often throughout the interview. Gardner argues that this young woman "desperately wanted God to write her love story," but when she left God to write it, "the result was a fractured fairy tale, one without a happy ending."

If I understand this correctly, an unrelated book included an interview from an unnamed person who 'referred to' When God Writes Your Love Story, and it deserves a place in Wikipedia? Unless this book was written in response to the Ludy's work, I don't see why it is noted.

RJ Ledesma of The Manila Times wrote that his girlfriend, when she returned to the Philippines from the United States, was going to bring him a copy of When God Writes Your Love Story and several other relationship books including What Women Want Men to Know, Why Men Love Bitches, and an illustrated copy of the Kama Sutra.

In this case, a contributor to a smalltown newspaper mentioned that his unnamed girlfriend visited the Philippines and brought back When God Writes Your Love Story. I cannot think of a reason to consider this due weight.

I found most of the body to be engaging and encyclopedic, though. Good work. I would appreciate some brief feedback on the two aforementioned "critical responses". American Eagle (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I approve of the way you handled my suggestions. Thanks for your time and knowledge of the subject. I did make one small change to the article, which I explained in the edit summary. Let me know if you prefer the former wording. I'll see if I can contribute anything to the article in the future, and I'll be keeping an eye on it as it potentially becomes a GA. Thanks again, American Eagle (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I admire your diligence! You have gone the extra mile (read: finding a real book) to make sure the article was correct. Side note: I'm curious as to why the article has no external links. Isn't it standard to link to the author's website? American Eagle (talk) 08:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds very good! Let me know if you need anything. American Eagle (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The article Chirrup has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Neologism, WP:NOTDICTIONARY

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Revolution1221 (talk) 01:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you know where exactly the handprints at the Hollywood Hills Amphitheater are located? I have visited twice before and didn't see them anywhere.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfern8788 (talk • contribs)

Hi, thanks for your TFL comments. Unfortunately I'm not sure I know what the false parallelism was that you mentioned. Do you mean predators and prey both "hiding in plain sight", or animals and soldiers both wearing white in the winter? Perhaps "wear" is a metaphor in one case, not the other, so you'd prefer "are coloured white" etc? Sorry to trouble you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Redirects to Fort Langley (which does to the one in BC, I'd thought it went to the US military base when I made my edit comment) and Langley City will not cause the target pages to show in black/bold on the template; only placing the template on the redirect would, and that's not doable.Skookum1 (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay... So where exactly? I walk into the B&TB area and where do I go from there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfern8788 (talk • contribs)

Template:Human trafficking in popular culture has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I began the GA review for ProtoGalaxy at that article's talk page; only a few small issues appear to need to be addressed. Thanks for your work on this one. --Niwi3 (talk) 10:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

		The Good Article Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for promoting ProtoGalaxy to GA status. Thanks, and keep up the good work! --Niwi3 (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Students in the course where you're the online ambassador seem to have made an article most duplicating other WP content -- see my comments at WT:Animal, Vegetable or Mineral?,where I've made some suggestions about how they should proceed. Some of it may be tricky for beginners, so either you or I may have to help them with it. I've made mistakes in checking topics too, more often than I like to remember. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

As I said on the article talk p there in response to your qy, I had thoroly misunderstood the issue, and I apologize for not reading more carefully. DGG ( talk ) 20:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

GA on Hold, with review, at Talk:2012 tour of She Has a Name/GA1. Shouldn't be too hard to address. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Great job, passed as GA quality. — Cirt (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've decided to nominate white jazz, which you wrote a few days ago, for deletion. I've outlined my reasoning in detail on the nomination page. Chubbles (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, and agreed, — Cirt (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Neelix, is there a particular reason why you made the whole of the Fragmentalism article a part of the lead of Reductionism? You might also want to take a look at Help:Merging. Kind regards, 㓟 (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Why are writers being categorized by gender? I'm not sure I see the point.--NapoliRoma (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Napoli,

I appreciate you contacting me about this. One of the main reasons for the subcategorization is our guideline on diffusing large categories; categories containing thousands of entries (as Category:American writers currently does) are barely useful and need subcategories. It is common for users to be looking for notable people of a particular gender. List of female Nobel laureates is a good example. Do you disagree with the gender categorization in this case?

Neelix (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I certainly see the issue with large categories. I've found in the past as a reader as opposed to an editor that quite often there is no satisfactory solution, as subcategorizing often means, depending on what my ultimate goal is, that I have to plow through multiple categories, which sometimes feels more cumbersome than plowing through multiple alphabetized pages.

However, making the first cut be by gender seems terribly arbitrary. "What I'm really looking for is a book about tree sap written by a man," I never say.

List of female Nobel laureates feels like less than a good example -- it's a list, rather than a category, being the most obvious weakness. There is also the distinguishment that for most of the history of the Nobel prizes, women nominees were a rarity. The field of writing has been more inclusive of both women and men for quite a while now.

Going back to categories, I note that Marie Curie is categorized as both a "Woman chemist" and a "nuclear chemist", whereas author Joanna Brooks (the page that happened to be on my watchlist) is only an "American woman writer". If authors were in more than one writing category, this might be less of a sore thumb. Then again, if authors were in more than one category, genital equippage would probably become a less-preferred categorization.

I haven't looked at how widespread this categorization is, or how thoroughly it was discussed in advance, but I could see how this might be seen as a controversial choice of taxonomy outside of the confines of WP editor-land. Cheers, NapoliRoma (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Napoli,

I recognize that this article in The New York Times has been drawing attention to this category specifically. The author of that article suggests that less categorization (ie. removing the "women-specific" category) is the solution, whereas consensus on Wikipedia tends towards more categorization (ie. creating the "men-specific" category in addition). Categorization by gender is very common across Wikipedia. Certainly, all American women writers should be in other American writer subcategories as well, such as Category:American diarists, Category:American hymnwriters, and Category:American satirists. Our guidelines about offensive material, including offensive categorization, is that we don't censor encyclopedic content; as a community, we are less concerned about offending people than about including as much encyclopedic information as possible, such as American writers' genders. If you are interested in subcategorizing American writer articles by non-gender criteria, any help in diffusing Category:American writers would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, hadn't seen that article. That seems a bit sensationalistic -- especially since there is a category American male writers (which Joanna Brooks was briefly in... :-). But it's exactly the kind of optics issue for WP that I imagined when I saw the above-mentioned edit.

I don't really see this as a "censorship" issue. The fact that an author is either female or male is, to my mind, neither offensive nor censorable. However, the idea of subcategorizing by gender is not, to my mind, useful -- and, as it turns out, the optics are exactly as negative as I'd feared they might be, and I'm not sure that's something we should ignore.

There are only two genders. A split by religion, or political affiliation, would go much further to subcategorize -- but I'm pretty sure the uproar would be even worse.

It seems to me that if one is going to create subcategories that turn the main category into a subcat-only cat, the subcategorization should be strongly related to the primary category (genre of writing rather than favorite color of author, for example).

I'm not pretending to have a solution to this, although if I come up with something brilliant I'll be sure to share. (Again, though, as I mentioned above, I might be swimming against the consensus on the issue of whether subcategorization for the sake of subcategorization really buys readers all that much.) It was more than anything a reaction to an edit I saw going by on my watchlist that seemed confusing and potentially deleterious to the project. Regards, NapoliRoma (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Napoli,

Understood. Be sure to let me know if you come up with a proposal relating to gender-based categorization; I'd be glad to add my input.

Neelix (talk) 17:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. It was not an error. The reason why the category was undone is because the author has worked and resided (and currently lives) in a number of countries and cities outside the Unites States. This is according to the following recent interview the author gave to Literature Across Frontiers. You can read the contents at the following link: http://www.lit-across-frontiers.org/transcript/interview-with-viken-berberian/ The other undone was obvious, "male" American author seemed redundant.

Regarding the citations, could you help correct references 19, and 20 as this seems a stylistic issue. They are currently in red: "citations do not use positional parameters "=" correctly." Not sure what the errors are here as "=" is used or how to fix, resolve the errors.

Thank you Neelix. 46.241.178.218 (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

List of fictional pigs :) LoriLee (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou for your help on dispersing the contents of Category:American writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Talk:Nefarious: Merchant of Souls/GA1

GA on Hold, please see comments there, shouldn't be too hard to address those. Thanks for your quality improvement efforts to Wikipedia, — Cirt (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Would be interesting to know where you photographed the woodpecker. Botswana/Zimbabwe I guess. JMK (talk)

Thanks! The species occurs at low densities, so it adds value to have a location. JMK (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. With the diversity in TFL point you had raised earlier, some of the FL directors have expressed their opinion here. Would you be able to take a look it? - Vivvt (Talk) 14:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I see you recently moved Lost (TV series) to Lost (2004 TV series), a move I wholeheartedly agree with. I tried to do something similar for the same reasons with Angel (TV series) to Angel (1999 TV series) earlier today, but was reverted, with the reverting editor pointing to the discussion at Talk:Lost (TV series)#Requested move as a reason. I don't agree with this reasoning, so I put something at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Additional disambiguation required for Angel (TV series) for clarification also. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Neelix, you should not have made this move without gaining consensus. A consensus that you clearly do not have, as evidenced by the above mentioned discussion. I have undid your move, but have not been able to move the talk page back. Can you please move back Lost's talk page to the (TV series) disambiguation and start a new discussion before acting without consensus? Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Neelix, just to say that I think they were both OK. You could try checking with WP guidelines or MOS, not sure where I looked it up. cheers Iztwoz (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Thank you for the lovely response, all best Iztwoz (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I've been away for a couple of days, and I'm going away again tomorrow, with luck I'll be able to look later in the week. As for the heading, help yourself, I probaby nicked it from someone anyway (bear in mind that that there will always be some users who will ignore what you say even if you tattoo it on their foreheads) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, got the fac review done sooner than expected. FWIW, I have a current fac that could do with more eyes too (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, You signed up to participate or view in this month's GLAMout. We'll be using Google Hangout, but unfortunately the link to the Hangout won't be available, until 15 minutes beforehand. We'll post the link as soon as possible at Wikipedia:GLAM/GLAMout#Link

Time: 12pm-1pm Pacific Time (3pm-4pm ET | 19-20h UTC) Coordinator: Merrilee Proffitt, OCLC Anchor topic: VIAFbot and authority control in EN:WP, and on Wikidata.