User talk:Eggishorn/Archive/2017

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 21:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)}Reply

It has been suggested at the deletion discussion for Molly Bouchard that to back the deletion of such articles we would need to create a not policy to support it. To me this seems like an overly beauractratic approach to the issues at hand, but maybe it should be our course moving forward. I am also not sure what the best way to do that is. I also have to admit that it is trying dealing with the people who insist on ignoring the actual contents of what has been discussed in the deletion discussions for the last 8 months and insist that there are special considerations that should lead to ignoring what actual editors say.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I will leave a note on the latest VPP posting he made saying that this is being published and also chime in on the related discussion. Maybe that will be the easiest. Or not. We'll see. I'm half-convinced he will post a complaint either way at AN or AN/I. Thanks for letting me know. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

After it closing as no consensus, it was immediately listed in a merge discussion at Talk:Forever (website). Since some people found their way already, making the same arguments they did in the AFD, I figured it only proper that everyone involved in the past discussion be notified regardless of whether they said Keep or Delete, I contacting all those who hadn't found their way there already. Dream Focus 18:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Eggishorn! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a new WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Just for clarity: If this is about this edit, that is about a Russian horror/action film, not Green politics. I'm not sure otherwise what recent edit you might be referring to. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I declined your speedy deletion nomination of I Want to Spill the Blood of a Hippy under WP:A9 because the artist had an article. Please make sure the artist does not have an article before nominating articles for deletion under A9. Thank you. Appable (talk | contributions) 20:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Eggishorn/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Tazerdadog (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

The email you sent me is not showing up. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry about that. The gist was that I've added some more at Cunard's to the draft you've seen earlier. I've resent the email. Thanks.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Eggishorn. I was hoping you can help me with a question about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hari Bhimaraju, which you recently commented on. (If you're not the right person, can you please point me in the right direction?)

The AfD says that the discussion is closed, by a non-admin, who appears to be an IP editor who has never made any other edits at all. And yet the article itself still says that the deletion discussion is active. So I'm not sure what is going on - has that AfD discussion been properly closed, or is it still open? --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Gronk Oz:, you are correct, that was a non-standard close. I believe that the decision superficially comports with the closing standards but I share your concern. It may have been an involved editor closing while logged out, which would be problematic. I see three options for moving forward: revert the close, take it to deletion review, or simply complete the missing steps and see if another editor wishes to challenge it. Since Cyberbot III already did part of the clean-up, I have gone ahead and done the last option. If anyone has a problem then we can continue the discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Great - thanks for tidying that up. --Gronk Oz (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you closed the RfC on Talk:Tomas Gorny, despite the fact that you are not a sysop. Given the fact that this article has a complex history of paid editing, meatpuppetry, etc. the RfC should be closed by a sysop, as was requested at WP:AN. Allow a sysop to close it, rather than doing so. I hope you understand, why in this case, a sysop is necessary. Eliko007 (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for contacting me here. The problem with your revert is, as an involved editor, you don't get to make that call. It doesn't if you started the RfC or not. See WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, particularly this bit: Closures will rarely be changed by either the closing editor or a closure review:...if the complaint is that the closer is not an admin. A previous RfC specifically on the issue of whether non-admin closes can be summarily overturned simply because the closer was not an admin said: On the question of whether an RFC close by a non-admin can be summarily overturned by an admin, in most cases, no, and never if the only reason is that the closer was not an admin. It is an obvious policy that if admins can't do this "in policy", then involved editors certainly can't. I expect that, now that you know this, you will self-revert your error on WP:AN/RFC Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm curious as to how you found the discussion in the first place. Did someone contact you to close it (I'm not asking this to cause offense but given the level of that occurring at the RfC, I must ask)? I stand by what I've said and request that you would request a sysop to look at the RfC in light of the problems occurring there. Feel free to alert WP:ANI if you think it would resolve the issue because at this point I'm pretty damn frustrated. Eliko007 (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Before you let your frustrations boil over, I think you may want to remind yourself about WP:AGF. You don't know me, I don't know you. For the record, I closed it because it was listed on WP:AN/RFC, just like every other RfC I close. Closing a discussion is not taking a position on the discussion itself or its underlying issues. If it's listed on WP:AN/RFC, it has already been highlighted for admin action. There's no reason or need to re-publicize it for admins. If no admin stepped in, any other uninvolved editor is perfectly free to. The preferences of the person who listed it have no controlling interest. Unless you can present a reason the close I wrote did not accurately summarize the discussion I will restore the close shortly. Simply disagreeing with the result or my status are not good reasons, especially for an involved editor like yourself. Please re-read the links above. Thank you.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but closures cannot be reverted just like that. If Eliko007 has a problem, let them take it to WP:ANI. I have restored the closure. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Eliko007:, @Lemongirl942:, although this was not requested I have expanded my close rationale as a measure of good faith. Thank you again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

According to the above 6 PRODs listed by you are deleted, but the articles remain. Not the first time I have seen this, I think (not confirmed) that somebody is timing the expiry of the prod to remove the tag. Not quite fair play. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Actually, @Richhoncho:, the PROD's were deleted, then restored when the artist article was refunded here. Thanks for the heads-up, though. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

We had talked a bit at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_-_non-requested_automated_messages_on_talk_pages_must_be_short. We considered talking by email, and you suggested that the most productive way forward might be to exchange some notes here. It is hard for me to plan a complicated conversation by text, but just to start, I will ask some short answer questions to minimize the burden of discussion on you and also to confirm that we are starting with agreement on the same data.

1. The Internet Archive bot has made 100,000 talk page posts, and should be expected to make 100,000s of thousands more over the next few years. Do you agree?
2. The posts which the IABot makes are evenly distributed among all articles, as any sort of link on any sort of article might rot and trigger the bot to make a post. Do you agree?
3. What is your best guess of the average amount of human attention which a talk page post gets in its life? Some answers might be less than 1 second, 1 second, 30 seconds, a minute, or several minutes. I guessed 60 seconds.
4. In comparison to an average talk page post, how much time do you think IABot posts get in their life? More, less, or about the same?
5. Do you feel that messages posted to talk pages should be intended for reading? Like for example, are talk pages the place to post messages which the poster does not expect people to read?
6. Do you agree with my claim that to calculate the time which the bot's activity consumes, one can multiply (number of posts) by (average time which humans consider a post)?
7. How often do you feel that humans reading IABot posts will feel happier for having read it? 90% of the time, 50%, 10%? I expect ~0%.
8. The IABot replaces dead links for archived live versions, and asks for a human to check it. How often do you think the bot is wrong? I expect ~0% of the time.
9. Can you name any other Wikimedia project in which any automated process makes any request of humans for the sake of the project on this scale (perhaps on the order of bot/human discussion among 10,000+ users?)

I do not quite know where to begin the conversation, but if you can identify a divergence in our views, I would appreciate your insight about where you think I am out of line in raising this issue. I have been narrow minded about this, and it is hard from my limited view to understand what others can see that makes them satisfied to permit so much human attention going to such a low value project. I support the bot's main work function but see no reason for it to have a secondary mission of asking so many humans to become involved in process verification. I would really like to understand what you are seeing. Thanks for your insightful HUMAN attention and talking with me. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

First, let me thank you for agreeing to continue this conversation. I have every reason to think that the dialogue can be productive. to answer your specific questions:

1. I assume that you mean "hundreds of thousands" rather than millions, but @Cyberpower678:'s bot request specified 130,000 to possibly a million pages affected, so we agree on the order of magnitude.
2. Actually, I don't entirely. Linkrot is not an evenly-distributed phenomenon. It affects articles that are most likely to use ephemeral sources. These tend to concentrate in articles about art subjects (musicians, films, TV shows, etc.) and subjects that have been in the news since the project started. Within those two admittedly very broad types of subjects, however, I think the premise holds true. At the very least, it is not possible to reliable predict the likelihood of a particular article being affected.
3. I don't have any basis to give an honest answer to this question. I have been in the past professionally involved in reader comprehension studies and surveys. Those experiences have taught me that estimating reader attention, comprehension, speed of reading, etc. are all difficult to predict. I wouldn't be able to make even an educated guess without having some sort of survey. On top of that, I suspect a large portion of readers simply ignore talk page posts that are clearly labeled as bot posts. This makes estimating reader time even more complicated.
4. I suspect very, very much less, but, again, without any data, I'm simply fumbling in the dark on this one.
5. I don't agree that the bot's messages are write-only, but context is important. I believe (again nearly evidence-free) a minority of talk page users read every post on a talk page. A minority of those probably read bot talk page posts and a further minority of those will read the entire IAbot post. Does that make them non-informative? Not at all. The same could be said about many types of talk page posts. To the editors that are concerned about the subject, however, they are necessary, perhaps even vital.
6. No. As indicated above, I know from experience that such simplistic calculations are not correlated strongly to reality of user experience.
7. Happier? that's an odd standard to take. I would agree that it approaches 0%. Informed, however, well, that's a different question. That can be any non-zero number and still useful.
8. I'm not competent enough at bot programming to judge. The bot approval discussion, however, indicates that editors that have more experience in the subject thought it was enough of a risk to want to make it noted.
9. No, but I don't think that's a question that has any relevance. If a bot is making automated edits to the magnitude of pages its author believes, then there needs to be some notice of its having done its task.

I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it is helpful. I might ask follow up questions later but for my next step I am going to check in with the bot approval team. I want to make sure that "editors that have more experience in the subject" exist and see what calculations they did here. All your answers here are interesting to me. Thanks for your time and attention. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Might I suggest that you start your checking with the bot's approval discussions? There are two for IAbot: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Cyberbot_II_5 and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Cyberbot II 5a. Good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, that is a lot to read and I need to look it over. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome and no problem. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

圖博's pronunciation is similar to that of Tibet. There are three ways to translate, meaning, pronunciation, and mix both.--61.224.21.199 (talk) 06:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Anyway,圖博 is 西藏.Compared with the People's Republic of China, other Han users are very rare. This is why 圖博 is rare.If you do not mind please GOOGLE.--61.224.21.199 (talk) 07:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I stand corrected. Thanks for the information Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

The Lui Che-woo article is an interesting one. On Talk:Lui Che-woo, there is reference to OTRS permission to use the material at http://www.kwah.com/en/luichewoo.asp. (I don't have OTRS access so I can't check in on this part.) That url is dead now, but here's archive.org's copy of it from 2012. Some of the text is the same as http://www.kwah.com/aboutus_dr_lui.php?lang=en now, but there have evidently been some additions over the years. Granted, even if it turns out that the text is suitably licensed for use on Wikipedia, most of it would have to be removed due to rampant promotionalism anyway. I'd thought about chopping out the worst bits piece by piece, but in hindsight your reversion is probably easier. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 13:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

There has been a concerted effort since January by a series of sock puppets to insert the advertising copy that the other editor added. And it's always the exact same ad copy. You can certainly be another set of eyes helping prevent it. Just revert on sight and move on. Thanks for the message. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'll keep it on my watchlist. Best, /wiae /tlk 00:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Cyberbot was right, I should have re-added the notice after reverting. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the WP:DRN regarding dispute resolution. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy_theory#Spirit_cooking_and_leaked_FBI_document".The discussion is about the topic Pizzagate. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Terrorist96 (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Eggishorn. Do you happen to have a few minutes to take a look at Harold S. Koplewicz RE BLP and promo? (see Talk) I am not allowed to make changes directly per WP:COI. Best regards. CorporateM (Talk) 23:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Yashovardhan (talk) 05:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Could you make any sense of that? Edit, revert, rinse, and repeat? Or is it just a nut? Anmccaff (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well, they are obviously convinced of their usage in Vietnam but for what reason, I'm not sure. I note that they are probably mainland Chinese. That could imply either they have a source that is unavailable to us or that they were just misinformed. Not to say that such a putative source would be right, of course. Maybe it's an old-timer in their apartment block or something. Who knows? I'm working through their contributions list now to remove their addition to a bunch of infoboxes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict)::Yeah, it was the part about changing, reverting back, changing to the same thing reverted from, reverting again.... That makes no simple sense, but I wondered if it wasn't to build edit coint, &cet.

Yupp, there's a whole lot of it scattered through wiki, and a lot of it is borderline - do we count weapons that you could count on your digits, without taking off your socks? (I'd maybe say yes if they were some kinda super-specialized special forces james bond crapola, but a definite no, otherwise.) The beging of the war is alittle hazy, too. Some would put to the earliest US involvement, others to when the North got serious about invasion. Real can-o-worms there, too. Anmccaff (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I agree in all of that. One could possibly make the argument for a few of these additions. Leftover weapons brought in by the Japanese during their occupation, for example. Even those, however, would only have been used as long as the limited stocks of ammunition lasted and certainly not past the French phase. That wouldn't really fit into how these have been added and well, the editor would have to actually make such an argument instead of just willy-nilly adding them and ignoring their talk page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Anmccaff:, I reverted all their recent changes but for two that I'd like you to check me on, if you could. Specifically, their infobox changes to SKS and ZH-29. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wilco. It might be next weekend before I get to a real library, though. Anmccaff (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think you are correct on the SKS. Don't want a whole laundry-list, but don't want significant uses ignored, either.

Same with the ZH-29. Can't see anything that suggests they were in significant use during the second war, although they may have been. It'd be a nice anonomized rifle for either side to use at that point. I changed it back; as you say, this needs some cites, and I think also some numbers. Anmccaff (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your help. I guess another question is: how to proceed with the editor, now that their most recent edits have been addressed. They have continued a behavior past a block so that suggests needing admin intervention somewhere. Where the best place to request that involvement, however, is not clear to me. They aren't active, so I'm not sure about AIV. Do you have an opinion? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

No chahhge. Did you leave the thing at ANI anonymous deliberately? Anmccaff (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

D'oh! No, that was just me being stupid. I'll fix now. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Eggishorn. There is nothing factually inaccurate about saying he has 33 players drafted into the NBA. Please explain to me why you feel this is biased or promotional? This is a fact that is proven by my sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Loeb (talk • contribs) 15:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

There are several concerns. First, you have oddly acknowledge the possibility of a conflict in interest in this section title but have yet to definitively indicate if you are professionally connected to or paid by Mr. Driesell. If so, please review the policies and guidelines I linked to on your talk page. Secondly, the leading paragraph, often called the "lede" is for a brief summary of the subject. It is not a news article or pr-style lead paragraph. Please see the guidelines on ledes for more information. Thirdly, you included a reference to a biography but it was for a different factual claim - that of the naming of Georgia State University court in Atlanta. There is a previous link for the Georgia State Panthers Factbook but that also references a different claim, the >2500 victories. Finally, while the claims may be factual, they are not necessarily significant and load a bunch together is certainly promotional. Such as including induction into "eight other... halls of fame." I presume this may include such halls as the Southern Conference Hall, from his time at Davidson? Those are not the type of halls that lend support to a subject and are frankly clutter.

All of this, however, is secondary to the most important question, the paid contributor one. If your edits to this article are part of an effort to promote Mr. Driesell for the one unquestionably important Hall of Fame to which he has yet to be inducted, then you are in violation of this site's legal policies. Your best course of action is to clarify that question before returning to edit the article.

Thank you for getting in touch with me to address your concerns and I wish you the best. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

In your close here you said "no consensus for using the sources." The sources were determined by a prior RfC that was linked in the discussion, and that RfC itself was the fruit of a very long process. The new RfC sought to change the sourcing established by the former RfC. There was no consensus to change the sources. Would you please change your close? It is really important the history of consensus-building be respected; it is what this whole project is built on. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Jytdog:, I did read the old RfC's and the archives. There was a lot of non-policy compliant discussion and extraneous irrelevancies to wade through. That said, I concur that respecting prior consensus is important. I am obviously confused, however, by the difference between "no consensus to change the sourcing" and "no consensus to include the sourcing". If you can give me some guidance on that, I will certainly try to accommodate you. I may very well have missed something in the review I did. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. It would be great if you would please just replace the word "using" with the word "changing" in the bit I quoted above. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Would "No consensus for changing the use of the listed sources" be acceptable? It seems more grammatically correct to my inner pedant. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Done @Jytdog:, I've updated the close. Thanks for your input on clarifying my statement. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Eggishorn, why did you close this this discussion? Seems very strange as we were still working out the details. Also, your decree about the consensus being local to WikiProject College football undermines the entire point of the discussion. The goal was to come up with a uniform treatment for navboxes for North American sports biographies, because there is no way to isolate a population local to one WikiProject. The sets of people who have played or coached in college football, college basketball, Major League Baseball, NFL, CFL, and NBA, etc. are highly overlapping. Where would the proper the place to have such a discussion be such that the consensus would apply to the intended range of WikiProjects and articles? @Corkythehornetfan: pinging you here to loop you in. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I closed it because it had been listed at Requests for closure for nearly three weeks and had been initiated nearly two months ago. That is customarily long enough to respond to a requested close. I also said the consensus was local because it was local. See WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. There was no wider discussion on other wikiprojects. Your desire to get consistency across wikiprojects may be admirable, but you need to actually get the wider community involved. I would suggest opening a request in a centralized place, such as the Village Pump. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well, this is Corkythehornetfan's project. I actually have a dissenting opinion in the matter. But I feel that his intent, and that of everyone involved, has been undermined. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I disagree, Eggishorn. The sports projects that it would affect (NBA, Baseball, NFL, CFL, Sports, and College basketball) were all notified in a timely manner where they could've seen it before or if it was archived from their talk pages. Not only were they notified, but those in the related RFC category were notified as well, which is how L3X1 and SMcCandlish found out about the discussion. If the WikiProjects' members – or anyone else who has those pages on their watchlist – didn't want to participate in the discussion, that's their problem, not ours. They had their chance. I also agree with Jweiss... although were were about done and basically had a consensus, you still closed it prematurely. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 00:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Edit conflict, but still mostly applies.The requester's intent is all fine and dandy, but project policies are more important. Corkythehornetfan notified six other Wikiprojects: [1]. Simple notification is not enough, participation is required. By my count, those projects list 555 active participants. There were all of five individual participants after that notification. Even assuming a huge level of multiple-counting of participants in those projects. that's a pitifully small participation in the discussion. There is no way that any honest user can argue that the results of this discussion can apply to other places. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Eggishorn, I have to disagree with you as well. Pedantically and myopically following flawed procedures it less important than bringing consistency and improvement to the encyclopedia. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

If you can demonstrate buy-in for such a change, then by all means, do it. If you feel the policy on consensus is flawed, then by all means, propose changes to it. If you think the consensus on using navboxes in a group is ready for a change, you are welcome to argue for that. As an RfC closer, however, I cannot substitute my judgment on those issues: He or she is not expected to decide the issue, just to judge the result of the debate... The result of the debate was reasonably clear and applied within the project where the discussion was held. Extending that consensus to other projects without their participation is quite clearly against policy. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

25+ people, Jweiss and I included, were pinged to the discussion by Jweiss or myself. Your closing judgment is flawed and makes it feel like that whole discussion was for nothing.   Truth be told, whether you say its only for College football or not, I'm most likely going apply our consensus to the articles in the WikiProjects it affects and that a were notified. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 00:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

If you feel that participation among 5 people out of your stated over 25 forms a consensus, then you are reading a different policy on assessing consensus than I am. If you feel that WP:IAR justifies using this consensus on other projects, then I think you are likely to find opposition. What I would humbly suggest is that you create a proposal at WP:VP and link to this discussion as a way of bootstrapping it into general usage. WP:There is no deadline, after all, and having the backing of a wider community's approval can only ease your editing. If no-one responds there, then you have all the justification you need. There isn't much downside in getting more support for your intended changes. I wish you the best. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have read the [source standards] and find it very confusing.

Can you tell me if any of these may possibly be good sources to get Computer Gaming Addicts Anonymous added as a Twelve Step Group on [Step Group in Wikipedia] and possibly even a page of its own in Wikipedia?

>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-video-game-addiction-met-20170529-story.html >http://www.12step.org/social/online-meetings/ >http://www.projectknow.com/research/12-step-behavioral-addiction-support-groups/ >http://studentsuccess.kennesaw.edu/cyaar/about/resources.php >https://shcs.ucdavis.edu/recovery_resources >https://books.google.com/books?id=ccuaCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA310&lpg=PA310&dq=%22computer+gaming+addicts+anonymous%22&source=bl&ots=s7FxtBHSAt&sig=NzQ2CYC9QhX4iEUZf2KsM4AE2u4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiEsazcwKfUAhXFMyYKHYMCC6A4HhDoAQgjMAA#v=onepage&q=%22computer%20gaming%20addicts%20anonymous%22&f=false >http://mmp.bmcc.cuny.edu/chason.worrell/Prevention.html >https://wellmind.com/2016/11/meeting-meetings-meetings/ >http://www.compassmark.org/addictive_behaviors.html >http://www.generationnext.com.au/2015/08/gaming-addiction/ >http://www.and4wm.com/a-new-direction-recovery-education/ >http://www.recoveryplusjournal.com/self-help/ >http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/video_game_addiction_its_real_and_potentially_harmful_20150128 >https://www.addictions.com/addiction-treatment/types-of-help-for-behavioral-addictions/ >https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Lentis/The_Psychology_and_Technology_of_Game_Immersion#cite_note-16 >http://chicagolymag.com/web/2016/08/plugged-in-the-story-of-internet-addiction/ >https://www.thefix.com/content/12-step-fellowships

Thank you so much for your help!

Janice in recovery — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janice in recovery (talk • contribs) 20:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Janice in recovery:, thank you for contacting me with your question. There are two sets of standards that are affecting the attempted addition of CGAA to the List of twelve-step groups. Hopefully, I can help you understand both.

First of all, however, I'd like to point out two simple ways of doing things around here that may help. First, when you post a comment to a talk page like this one or the talk page for the List of Twelve-Step groups, you should sign the post. This is as easy as typing a row of four tilde characters. These are the little wavy line characters usually at the top left of the keyboard, right above the tab key(~). Second, when you link from a talk page or an article to another Wikipedia page, it's as easy as putting the title of the page between two sets of square brackets. So, for example, linking to your user talkpage like this: [[User talk:Janice in recovery]] produces this: User talk:Janice in recovery. There's a little button below the edit window that helps you do this. If you look below the edit window, there's a label for "Wiki markup:" and the button looks like this: [[]]

The sourcing standards, however, are what you really asked about. List articles usually have standards for inclusion, and in the case of this article, the proposed group needs to have its own article already. In other words, to include CGAA in the List of twelve-step groups, you first need to create the Computer Game Addicts Anonymous article. In a way, by attempting to include the group on the list first and then create an article for the group second, you were trying to put the cart before the horse.

That said, this merely pushes the sourcing problem one step backwards and I realize it doesn't help much. So, what are the "real" standards? The three most important policies are the three core content policies: Verifiability, Neutral point-of-view, and No original research. Let's discuss each one separately:

• Verifiablity - can a reader or another editor use the same sources to find the same information you did? This, of course, requires that you identified sources for the article's claims at all. Not every sentence needs a citation, I should point out, just the important ones. To make up something relevant, a sentence like: "Computer game addiction was first recognized by Kari Freund in 2011," would need a verifiable citation. Something like: "Computer games are now played on a wide variety of platforms, including cell phones and tablets," would not. You have made a great start on this by finding the list you included above. Some are great sources, like the Chicago Tribune article. As long as you can include at least three or four sources like this one, you can use others to fill in some of the gaps or as External Links. The wikibooks source or the CGAA website (presuming it has one) are best left in the latter category, for example. Verifiability and notability kind of go hand-in-hand. There needs to be significant coverage (that is, more than just a paragraph or two or a simple meeting listing) in independent sources (ones not connected to the CGAA itself or a member or advocate) that are reliable (ones that demonstrate journalistic selectivity and judgment) for the article to pass the notability guideline.
• Neutral point-of-view - does the article simply provide facts or third-party evaluations and lets the reader make up their own mind? So, for example, an article about CGAA would neither talk about how important the organization is and what good work its doing for sufferers nor how its a scam organization that is taking advantage of desperate victims. Wikipedia is not a place for not a platform for promoting an organization and it is not censored to hide organizations.
• No original research - does the article present the results of other authors work? If the article is based on primary research and surveys or first-person testimonies, then it will be ruthlessly slashed or even completely deleted. Wikipedia is not a platform to publish new thoughts and inventions. We let other sources do the work of evaluating and synthesizing significance of new thought, and then we cite their evaluations, analyses, and syntheses.

So, where does all this leave you? Well, as I said above, I think you've already done a great deal of legwork to creating an article on Computer Game Addicts Anonymous and I have no doubt that you can continue to do so. I suggest that your next step is to use the Article Wizard tool. This will guide you step by step to creating your first article and getting it posted here. When you finish it, then another experienced editor will review it and give you feedback on what may be missing or (hopefully) mark it for posting.

Finally, thank you again for contacting me and I wish you the best. I have every confidence that you will be able to "jump through the hoops", as it were, without difficulty. Please feel free to contact me with any other questions. Good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for your information!!! I think I have a better idea of how to proceed. I have copied your reply for future reference so you can delete it along with this message. I tried the Article Wizard previously, created an article, it got a "speedy deletion nomination" (see User_talk:Janice_in_recovery) and was deleted . That attempt was before I messaged you.

I don't understand the need for a signature when my user id is present. It seems redundant, but I will comply.

Thanks again!

Janice in recovery (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)Janice in recoveryReply

I am glad that you found the information helpful. When you say "...my user id is present," so you mean that you see it on the talk page? When you don't sign your posts, there is a "bot" account (an automated script, really) that tries to come along and add it for you. That doesn't always work, though. Having everybody sign talk page posts makes following the conversation easier without having to refer to the history to find out who said what to whom. Here, it is easy since it is just you and me. On some talk pages, with multiple chiming in and talking over each other, it can get really confusing. Just an explanation, not a criticism.

I took a look at the previous speedy deletion nominations for your previous attempts to create the article. One issue is that they were both posted to the main space without going through the Articles for Creation process. This allows and article to "incubate" in the draft space without getting immediately deleted. It also allows you to get feedback as I mentioned above. The Article Wizard tool should have given you the option to save it as a Draft or submit if to Articles for Creation. If it did not, then you can always specify the title as Draft:Computer Game Addicts Anonymous and get it reviewed that way.

The other issue is that, for whatever reason, the people reviewing it did not see evidence of notability. This is something I mentioned above. If you indicate that multiple independent sources have covered this organization, that passes what we call the "CORPDEPTH test" and should prevent speedy deletion again. This is especially true if you use a draft.

I hope this (also) helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again! I understand about signing my post. Janice in recovery (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Janice in recoveryReply

Thanks for yr response. I don't want to nit-pick, but I didn't seek to *create^ a page. I simply wanted to edit the translation, arrived at thus:-

Google Montague Phillips Wiki

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=montague++phillips+wiki&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=bmE4WcqeLLPA8gex-6igBQ

Translate this page

Edit

Contribute to a better translation.

You do not have editing rights

I don't have the experience or wish to create page.

MontagueAmiel (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

That search link returns more than 4 million results, so I can only presume that you mean the first search result, the Montague Phillips page on the Dutch Wikipedia. This is the English Wikipedia and the two projects are run differently, by different groups of people. If, however, you mean the automated translation link that is displayed by Google, then neither the Dutch Wikipedia nor the English Wikipedia can help you. That's Google's machine translation. We have no control over or affect on it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I'm Dinah and I've been reading your responses on Norwalk for the past 2 days so that's how I found you. Anyway could you give my Draft article a look? I've been working on it for more than a week and recently submitted it for review but it was declined... could you take a look and tell me what is wrong? Dinah Kirkland (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello, @Dinah Kirkland:, I'd be happy to help but before I do, I need to make sure I'm on the same page (literally). Are you referring to Draft:Dinah Liddell (Alice In Wonderland)? Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Si thats the one. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the edits! I think it will be ready for submission again soon! Dinah Kirkland (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ok, great. I see that you put a lot of effort into following the character through different iterations of her appearance in various media. Some of the information you have in your article is also at List_of_minor_characters_in_the_Alice_series#Dinah. That article, however, only currently has information about the cat Dinah in the first book.

So I think there is a good possibility of establishing that Dinah deserves expanded treatment. There are two problems: the first is that it doesn't immediately state that this character is in more than the first book. I've already changed the lede slightly to help make this clear. I've also moved the page to Draft:Dinah Liddell to make it clear that her fictional existence is not in only one book.

The second, and more fundamental, problem is that there aren't any sources or citations that help demonstrate this existence beyond AAiW. This results in the draft being declined because no-one else can easily verify the statements being made. Verification is very important around here, and one of what are called the Core Content Policies.

What can you do, though? Well, I have already changed the wording a bit and the page title to (hopefully) make it clear to the next reviewer that you aren't simply duplicating List_of_minor_characters_in_the_Alice_series#Dinah. I've also changed the second heading from "appearance" to "Movie and video game appearance" to emphasize this. What you can do is add citations for the rest of the article. Starting with the section "First appearance", you need to go through the article and, wherever there's a factual statement about Dinah, add a citation. The easiest way to do this is to use the tools built into the edit window.

1. Place your cursor at the end of the sentence you want the citation to refer to.
2. If you look above the top of the edit window, there's some icons and then it says: Advanced Special characters Help Cite.
3. Click the word Cite. The light blue bar immediately below that changes and some new links appear.
4. The furthest link on the left of the blue bar is now a dropdown box that says Templates.
5. Click the down arrow and a list appears with the options: cite web cite news cite book cite journal
6. Click the one that most closely resembles the source where you first found out about the fact you are trying to cite.
7. Fill in the fields as best you can.
8. Click Insert at the bottom
9. Repeat as needed.

For example, The "Based on" section has one sentence: "Alice's fictional cat Dinah ... and her sister." Where did you find out about Alice Lidell and Willikins and Dinah? That source should be referenced there. Let's assume for a second it was a book. Place your cursor at the end of that sentence (after the period) and click Templates -> cite book. Then you can enter the name of the book, the author, the publisher, etc.

When you get all that in, then the sources you type will automagically show up in the "References" section I also added.

I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

It does! Grazie (Thank you)! I will add some source links when I'm back from my wikibreak! Dinah Kirkland (talk) 00:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Di niente! Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

is It good now? I can't think of anymore references to put in. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I moved the reference to the correct spot but no, that's not going to be enough to keep the article. I added ^{[citation needed]} in the places that you should endeavor to find sources that you can cite. You don't need to add a cite for each and every one of those, but more is always better. The one that definitely needs a citation, however, is the one in the "Based on" section referred to above. I would certainly encourage you to find one for that. A biography of Alice Lidell or Lewis Carroll may help, but I don't Carroll well enough to point you further. Good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! And would you mind Changing the name to Dinah Liddell (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)? Because there is a page for the Griffin titled with that but with the video game and movies included. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. If/when it goes "live" on the main space, then which do you think is more likely to get typed by a reader searching for it? "Dinah Liddell" or "Dinah Liddell (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)"? I can move it back, but for now, its I think easier to use the shorter title. We can always change it later before it is re-submitted. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well... I do only search 'Dinah Liddell' so I guess that one. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Despite your excellent advice I'm afraid there is nothing that I can edit in Wikipedia that JJBers will not track down and revert. I am guilty as well of being somewhat pigheaded. I believe I had learned from my past and set out to behave properly and civilly. I'm sorry to have wasted your time. I don't understand what the situation is with JJBers, but it seems he has some sort of immunity granted as his roughshod reversions have run rampant across too many other articles. I don't know what sanctions will be imposed on me. But, in any event, I hope you will continue to advise me when the time comes. I sincerely thank you for your effort and if there is any favor I can do for you for your kindness I will be obliged to you. Thank you again! ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

@StephenTS42:, You are very welcome and I have no qualms about continuing to try to assist. Edit wars are always damaging, there's no doubt about that. El C apparently acted to try to head off yet another one on that page. That means that the talk page is still open to you and JJBers, however, and you can and should both discuss the usage of these categories. If a consensus forms that these categories are not needed, well, that's the way it goes. It's not a personal rejection of your offerings. The categories could (as I said) improve the article but not having the categories is not a loss to the article which a reader would be unable to overcome. I suggest that the BRD process be allowed to play out. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I did not see Primefac's notes to you both on your talk pages when I wrote that. My advice on using the talk pages is obviously moot. I'm sorry to see it come to this. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Understood! I am grateful for your help.   Thank you very much!——→StephenTS42 (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Talk:Barbara_Bush_(born_1981)/Archive_1 - see this archive Govindaharihari (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Ow, it is fine, that is someone else, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I am not sure what to do with your response about my request to add Kevin Roma to the "Emergency Workers Killed in the September 11 Attacks" page. I have limited knowledge of how Wikipedia works.

The New York City Fire Patrol was an integral part of the emergency response that day. To me, (I am a Firefighter) it does not matter who pays the fire fighter's salary. To me, he is no different than the "Private Emergency Medical Services" who lost their lives.

The Fire Department of New York recognized his sacrifice with a full Fire Department funeral. To me, he has earned a place on this page.

Please reconsider or help me understand where to go from here in getting a consensus.

64.178.157.40 (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

First of all, let me thank you for your service. As the brother and son of firefighters and a former EMT myself, I am naturally sympathetic to your position. My comment was not intended to deny Roma from anything that is his due.

You say you "have limited knowledge of how Wikipedia works," and that's perfectly expected. One of the main ways that Wikipedia works is through the process of consensus. Consensus doesn't mean absolute agreement by everyone, but it does mean that there need to be discussions on changes. In the case of the article in question, I started a new section on the talk page titled "Inclusion of the New York Fire Patrol members". Make the same argument there you made above and ask that he be included. Thanks for contacting me. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

@64.178.157.40:, I don't know if you're still watching/listening/reading but just to let you know; there has been no objection in over 45 days to including Keith Roma at the relevant talk page. I will go ahead and add Roma. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Eggishorn , thank you for helping to improve.Cosidering Enamel microabrasion article that i created and was proposed for speedy deletion,it was deleted except the introduction paragraph,i added information again and took care of copyright issues. is that fine? Sarah Raslan (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Sarah raslan:, the reason most of the text was deleted is that it was identical, or nearly identical, to the medical journal articles you cited. You should probably read the pages on Copyrights and Copyright Violations before adding more text. Wikipedia is a different beast from what you may be used to and treats copyrights both very seriously and a bit differently from, say, academic publishing. The next big issue with the article now is that is is written more like text from a Merck Manual or other dentistry manual. Wikipedia articles should be written with ordinary readers in mind. How many of your patients know what "contraindications" are, for example? Those are the next things I would suggest working on. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

okay so you mean how many patients will understand the points i wrote in contraindications section? so you suggest Eggishorn to remove contraindications section? am i right? i have another question what do you think if i added technique of microabrasion? will it be understandable by general readers? thanks Sarah Raslan (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Actually, @Sarah raslan:, what I'm saying is that it needs a complete re-write to fit into the Manual of style, particularly the tone. I suggest reading this essay for some pointers. If you want, I can also edit the article for you myself. Neither of us owns it, after all. But this is exactly the type of work I used to have a business doing for doctors and other professionals. Regards. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

yes for sure,please go ahead and edit in it,i didn't mean that,i just want to improve my writing,thank you,will be glad to learn from your editting.Sarah Raslan (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Sarah raslan:, I went and edited the introduction, added a history section, and edited the description. Do you think you can use the changes there as a guide to the rest or should I continue? Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Great! Eggishorn ,thanks, will try to go according to your edit Sarah Raslan (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I submitted a news article about the Twitter new dashboard to update the Twitter Pagé. It isn't advertising but tech news. I thought it would be a gods reference article. How did I fail Wikipedia norms? Would you take a second look at the submission? https://rprnmag.com/ Thank you. Nicole NFarkas (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

@NFarkas:, thank you for your question. You were using an edit request about a Twitter feature to advertise the article written in an external source and, most blatantly, solicit feedback. That's pretty unambiguous. The message I left on your user talk page has a number of links that can help you understand the norms. Good luck, and I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

oh so I submitted to the wrong place. I will try again then in the News section. NFarkas (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Much better. In the future, however, it is easier to determine what needs to happen if your edit request reads more like: "Please change X to Y" or "Please add X to the Y section." I believe that you would like to see this added at the end of the "Growth - IPO" section. I will take a look and see what I can do. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I see you do a lot of closures at WP:ANRFC. Is it too soon to request a closure at Talk:Middlebury, Connecticut#RfC about pushpin map in infobox? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Magnolia677:, I try to help out, as the backlog there can get really long. RfC's generally run for 30 days and I see this has been open 13 days. The last comment seems to have been 6 days ago. That's not really what I'd call and active discussion but I would not be inclined to close it at this time. The consensus is quite narrow at this time, and leaving it open may well give it a chance for more clarity. Listing it at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Connecticut and Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps may also gain more eyes. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I should also note that I consider myself involved in this due to previous attempts to provide counsel to certain participants. Sorry if that slows things down even more. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC) Reply

Great, thanks. I'll wait a bit and add it to those other projects. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

(Piggy-back comment): Hi, Eggishorn: this might be about a different closure than the one above, but at this Rfc which you recently closed, would you mind linking "!vote" in your close summary (or give me leave to do it, WP:TPO and the closure notwithstanding)? The reason is, although I've been around for years, I never quite knew what "!vote" meant and it always puzzled me, until I finally learned it in the past month. Please have pity on the newbies (and oldbies, like me) who scratch their head every time they see that term, maybe for years; and do link it at least the first time it appears in a discussion. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Mathglot:I have never thought about that, but I think you make a very good point. It gets used so reflexively in AfD discussions and elsewhere that I guess I never thought to link it. Thanks for the reminder. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Eggishorn: Thanks so much for linking that. Is there a central place that I—(or perhaps better you; maybe more impact coming from you than me?)—could mention this so the "right people" will see it, and maybe go along with the idea? I could even see a new {{!vote}} being created just for this. In fact, maybe I'll go do it, if there isn't one already. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 06:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Mathglot:, this only thing I can think of might be the Village Pump, but I don't know what sub-section of that page I would categorize it as. Sorry that isn't more helpful. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

It's helpful. Follow along here, if desired. Mathglot (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hey dude, I wanna say thank you for fixing that info on the Mario article, it really means a lot. I was also wondering if you can fix that info on the Charles Martinet article too, I took it to the talk page of the article and asked for it to be fixed and changed with the sources I found. But another user on there refused to change it and stated my sources weren't good enough, I'm not mad about his reply for what he said, I was just confused for why he said that. 2600:1000:B03B:8F47:6CEB:3233:3AD2:9F17 (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

No problem. I already made the change on Charles Martinet. Feel free to go and make sure it looks good to you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

It looks great! 2600:1000:B078:4158:9C33:9AE4:61B:E3FA (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susan Michel (talk • contribs) 20:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

About a month ago you helped me with my Dinah Liddell page and I've found sources for everything except for one. Would it be okay to submit it now? And can you change the Name to Dinah Liddell (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)? Just so that it's like Griffin (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland). Dinah Kirkland (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

• @Dinah Kirkland:, I apologize for not getting back to you earlier. I looked at the draft, and it's definitely improving. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that it will not be considered good enough to go "live" in its current state. Two of your sources are other wiki articles, one to this wiki and one to an Wikia external one. Neither would be considered "reliable" by a reviewer. You've also left a ^{[citation needed]} tag and the one claim that may be most useful for establishing independent notability, the "Based on" section, has no sources. Overall, it looks like there is a need for more research to establish that this is an independent subject that needs a separate article. Good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! As for the Wiki tags I'm trying to remove them however I use the mobile version of Wikipedia and it's very hard to do so. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Dinah, I'm afraid I have next to no experience with the mobile version so my ability to help on that is limited. That said, removing the tag should be as easy as adding the new reference. In the editing window, go to the spot where you see: {{cn}} and just delete those characters and add your reference source. Hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Okay! I'm a bit busy with school and work but when I have the time I'll try and do that. Thank you! Dinah Kirkland (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I am looking to nominate you for an admin position here on Wikipedia, as I notice you've been doing very well at handling edit requests and rolling back vandals and disruptive editors. Am I okay to go forward with the RfA? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Jd02022092:, thank you for the kind words. I have been thinking about this recently myself, and was considering using the WP:ORCP poll soon. I would be gratified for a nomination, but I think it would only be prudent to see what the poll results would be first. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

No worries. Just let me know if the poll brings good results. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Jd02022092:, I started the poll, so you can follow along there, if you want. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I myself will surely follow along! You would make a great admin Dinah In Wonderland 17:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Jd02022092 and Dinah Kirkland: I wanted to let you know I withdrew the candidate poll. As I said there, it's clear I would have to significantly change my editing habits in order to build up an RfA-worthy resume. I have never previously edited with the intent of passing an RfA and I don't think I would find it rewarding to enact such a change just to get the admin bit. I will remain just another editor. Thanks for your support and encouragement. The endorsement of my editing that you both provided is reward enough for now. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ah that's to bad bello hopefully someday you'll consider it again, and if you do I'll be around for support and to follow along(as long as I'm still active that is) Dinah In Wonderland 16:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you again for the kind words. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

🖒 La vostra accoglienza. Dinah In Wonderland 19:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I was over on the [List of countries by GDP (nominal)] page and found your comment about the European Union Statistic. I was wondering if you could help me find where the UN statistic relating to the GDP of the EU came from. I understand (barely) why you did not include the statistic provided via addition but to me, the current stat is unverifiable. Any help is appreciated, thanks! Alex the Nerd (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

The section was not removed, they renamed it a few times but it is still in the article. Alleged authoritarian tendencies PackMecEng (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for letting me know. I looked for it but didn't find it. I see Ive been reverted already but I will revise. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Cool beans, thanks for the attempt though. Would be nice to see it closed someday. PackMecEng (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

the page on google has been hijacked, everything redirects to h!!p://www.gnaa.press/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtim20 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Rtim20:, thank you for letting some-one know, but it appears to have been fixed already by other editors. In the future, the talk page of that article would probably be a better place to report the problem and there is already a discussion there. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Update:The issue was also discussed and resolved at the Administrator's Noticeboards. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

	The Editor's Barnstar
	I'm very sorry your ORCP did not go the way you had hoped, but I still want to applaud you for taking care of several edit requests while I was away on a flight. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 05:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Jd22292:, thank you once again for the kind words. I wouldn't actually say it didn't go the way I hoped, as I was honestly looking for evaluation about RfA chances, which is what I received. I now have confirmation that, however appreciated individual other editors such as yourself find my edits, they are not the types of easy-to-evaluate thumbs-up/thumbs-down ones that RfA voters look for. I had suspected as much already, but the ORCP process confirmed that suspicion and saved me from some potential embarrassment. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC) Reply

@Cullen328:, I was happy to do so and I look forward to your work as an admin. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 12:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

As questioned on the talk page of Disney Channel-broadcast programs, I really want to know:

What is TV Block?

Is it that information box on the Web (the Google Search pages) where I get my information on edit requests from?

I would like it if you would reply to this message as soon as you can. Thanks! 2600:387:B:7:0:0:0:BA (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

(P.S.: Sorry if my contributer user name is kind of different. I'm actually 2600:387:B:F:0:0:0:BC.) Again, signed: 2600:387:B:7:0:0:0:BA (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC).Reply

Hello, and thank you for contacting me here. First things first: the reason why your contributor name keeps changing is that you are editing Wikipedia from a mobile device (such as a phone or tablet) and not signing into an account. Wikipedia has to identify you somehow and uses your IP address to do so. AT&T assigns the IP address to you and that address partially changes over time. It isn't your fault that the contributor name is kind of different, it's perfectly normal.

Secondly, you are partially misreading what jd22292 said. The actual phrase was "TV block schedules". In other words, TV program listings such as TV Guide or U-Verse listings. He was simply saying that, when you want to change Wikipedia articles about TV programs, you need to link an article in a magazine, newspaper, website, or something else instead of relying on the published TV listings because TV listings change frequently and aren't available for other editors to verify your information.

If you create an account by clicking here, you can assign yourself a shorter and stable account name. I think you would be an asset to the project. Creating an account will also do a couple of good things for you. One, I wouldn't be able to use IP location to find out that you are editing from the Miami area on AT&T, which your IP address tells me or anyone else. Creating an account actually improves your privacy in that way. Two, after a fairly short period, you would be able to edit such pages yourself without asking for help.

I hope this helps, and please don't hesitate to ask any follow-up questions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

1) I know that I am editing from a tablet. But thanks for telling me it's normal.
2) Ohhhhh. Thanks for telling me. But I usually get my information from the infobox on the Google Search pages (e.g. GS p. "Rolie Polie Olie"). 2600:387:B:7:0:0:0:BA (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

What is that infobox on the Google Search pages—like the example I gave yesterday—called? I really wanna know. 2600:387:B:7:0:0:0:BA (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I honestly don't know what the "official" name that Google has given to that. If you call it Google infobox or suchlike, I'm sure most people here will understand. I would advise you not to use it as a source for changes to articles. Google pulls that information from all over the web and the more popular a site is, the more likely it is to show up.

So Wikipedia results show up a lot, for instance. Referencing Wikipedia pages found through Google for a Wikipedia page is obviously a bit circular. Another example is IMDB, which can have erroneous or even malicious material added. IMDB tries to remove it, of course, but if you happen to be looking at the information there at the wrong time, you can be misled. Finally, those search results are not static. That is, they change. Verifiability of information is one of the core content policies here. If another reader or editor cannot verify the claim, then it won't get added or it will get removed.

Hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks.

But what about the part about Phineas and Ferb reruns no longer on Disney Channel? I mean, still on Disney Channel, but only during special occasions, like summer, right?

And the years in the P&F box titled "Date(s) reran" states 2015-17 (which I don't think counts as a source anymore, and I'm not asking for a change for that), so I don't think it airs on Disney Channel anymore. But then everything on Wikipedia says it now airs only on Disney XD. 2600:387:B:7:0:0:0:BA (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I don't know anything about Phineas & Ferb's airing schedule, but why not search for announcements of schedule changes? Just start by searching for the show on Google News, instead of regular Google search. Most networks put out a press release at least when they change regular schedules. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I found a Deadline.com article about about the last episode of Phineas & Ferb, but get what caught my eye: The article talks about when the show was moved to Disney XD in 2009. Even the COMMENTS SECTION talks about the move to Disney XD.

Just click on the reference below —

"'Phineas And Ferb' Doesn't Go Quietly: Series Finale Sets Disney XD Record"^[1]

I've been talking this up for the LONGEST time, and it would be great if this is a reliable source and if this request is accepted. Yep, I think this'll do it. 2600:387:B:7:0:0:0:BA (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Um, hello? Um, I think you're looking for me? 2600:387:B:7:0:0:0:BA (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't aware that I was looking for you, to be honest. I'm not always around, and I try to get to talkpage messages as soon as I can. As to the deadline reference, then I think you should create an account and try editing using that source and see whether other editors object. Good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Does this mean my request is accepted? That's all I want to know. 2600:387:B:7:0:0:0:BA (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Making the request here is not going to get it accepted, so, no, it isn't. You have to make the edit request on the talk page of the article involved. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sorry not to have yet had a chance to attempt this manoeuvre. Will do so soon.MontagueAmiel (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@MontagueAmiel:, whenever you get to it is fine. As we often say, there is no deadline, so don't worry too much about it. Thanks for the message. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hey EggisHorn,

I submitted a request to add the Ep Live like a suicide to Axl Roses page. You said the album was not important enough as to require a mention. However starting here on Wikipedia I edit things I know for sure;so i do not give false info. The EP Live like a suicide was the GNR demo tape that got them signed on Geffen records. The band then took their advance from the label and published the demo themselves with a dubbing of live crowd, hence the live in the title. The EP was so successful and rare the EP started sell for over 300 dollars in 1987 money. The band then realizing how well the public received the EP release the Live like a suicide records and 4 new acoustic tracks as the second major Record release GNR Lies following Appetite for destruction. So i feel the success of the EP and importance of the EP in the history of the band warrants the edit I suggested the edit so people can know and understand the band's history a little better.

Thank you, Randy O. Roberts II Randy O. Roberts II 14:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Randyorobertsii (talk • contribs) 10:36, July 30, 2017 (UTC)

@Randyorobertsii:, please see my reply at the article talk page. While I usually reply directly to questions here, I'm copying the question above there to keep everything in one place. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposed minor modification regarding G13. I put it at ANRFC a few weeks ago, but no one has touched it. I don't think you're involved, but if you don't want to close that's fine, I just reached out because I think the outcome of that discussion should be clear before the new larger G13 RfC is implemented. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@TonyBallioni:, I'll take a look. Thanks for alerting me. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I hope this finds you well.

I have questions: 1) where is the discussion about the deletion? 2) what guidelines has this article violated?Would someone please explain?

Mickeywrangle (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Mickeywrangle:, you can find the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Cline, as linked in the notice at the top of the John Cline page. In that discussion, I have linked to the relevant guidelines but to further expand on the sparse text there: Wikipedia includes articles based on a standard called "notability", which has a slightly different meaning here than it does in regular English. This avoids inherently-subjective standards such as "such-and-such person is really famous" or "I know this person and they are important in their field." The general notability guideline asks for three things: (1) multiple instances of significant coverage, (2) in independent sources, which are (3) reliable. The sources in the article are either not independent (his Facebook page) or not significant (being mere results listings). There are also specific notability guidelines for sportspersons and notability guidelines for cyclists, based on sporting results and similar qualities. John Cline does not appear to qualify under either of these guidelines. You are welcome to contribute to the deletion discussion, but I suggest reviewing this list of arguments that have historically been considered unpersuasive in deletion discussions. Good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Eggishorn: thank you Mickeywrangle (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Not a problem, @Mickeywrangle:. Thanks for your interest. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Did you do a word search?2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I did. If you think I missed something, I will look again. This is why the instructions for submitting and edit request specifically say: the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The request you posted was ""Pogramme" british spell" and therefore somewhat useless in attempting to fulfill your request. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well you said in the comments that all was well and right there on the history it has the change and your handle. You really shouldbe more accurate in your notes.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Strong in the irony, you are. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for trying to fix my careless ping, but they can't be fixed, you need to start a new signed edit. Doug Weller talk 16:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ah, well, I learn something new. I'll keep that in mind for the future. Thanks for letting me know. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the star, on what is a truly ghastly page. It's really appreciated. Mramoeba (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

You're more than welcome. Every time I go to look at that page, you've already cleaned what I was about to. Thanks for the effort. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

That's fine, but you could have directed them to the appropriate guideline in a must more constructive way. For example: "Please rephrase your request without the unhelpful vitriol and explain why you think the source does not meet our reliability requirements." I read your response as an prickly way of saying, "You are out of compliance so your request is denied." We're not a bureaucracy like that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I see your point. It was not intended to be prickly but straightforward. I have to say I don't see a significant difference between "religious screen" and "unhelpful vitriol" in terms of prickliness but it is obviously in the eye of the beholder. Thank you for the follow-up. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Dear Eggishorn

You left me a message about recent changes on the website of the European Graduate School (EGS) that have already been undone. I am familiar with Wikipedia, having written a couple of articles on different topics before and getting rid of minor typos, spelling problems etc. whenever I come across them.

The faculty members I entered have been amply documented: on their respective Wikipedia pages (to which I linked their names), on the EGS website, in Youtube lectures etc. There is no doubt that they were there and since I linked their names to the respective Wikipedia pages, that information is available there too. The same goes for "notable alumnus" Pablo Iglesias Turrión.

I have no conflict of interest but I know the school. I reverted the reversions and hope that's it as I am not planning to spend a whole lot of time with that particular article.

Very best, 185.110.89.197 (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@185.110.89.197:, an IP editor such as yourself adding a fairly large number of notable academics and alumnae to an article will usually pique attention for reasons I'm sure you can understand. My concern was not necessarily with the content of the edits but that the IP address seemed to indicate that it might be associated with the school. Hence the welcome, which is designed to alert users in case that situation might apply. As you say it does not, please feel free to ignore it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

I have removed material from Sean Hannity that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written pursuant to WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@James J. Lambden:, your understanding of the BLP policy is woefully inadequate, one-sided, and obviously biased. That a statement is sourced to an article on pinknews or a book written by a community college professor does not make them non-RS. You are now edit-warring and should self-revert as the WP:3RRNO exception does not apply. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have re-added Australia to the list of state opponents. The Royal Australian Air Force has for a long time now been conducting daily air strikes against ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq as a part of the coalition air task force. Australia also has special forces engaging ISIL directly on the ground in both countries, and conventional forces in Iraq training Iraqi Army soldiers for the fight against ISIL. This is all public information and can be verified on the ADF website, specifically the OP OKRA page: http://www.defence.gov.au/Operations/Okra/default.asp

← Previous editNext edit → Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant 28 BYTES REMOVED, 21 HOURS AGO Reverted to revision 805635433 by Ira Leviton: "state opponents" refers to naitons that have sent forces to combate ISIL/ISIS in Syria nd Iraq, not ones that have had to suppress or suffered attacks from ISIL/ISIS-inspired terrorists. (TW) | allies = | opponents = State opponents

•   Australia
•   France
•   Iran

Thanked Eggishorn EXTENDED CONFIRMED USERS 5,977 EDITS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darwinbloke83 (talk • contribs) 09:18, October 18, 2017 (UTC)

@Darwinbloke83:, that type of reference is what's needed on edits to articles in this type of highly-contentious article. My edit summary was not intended as any type of rebuke. I'm sure you can understand the need to be conservative with changes. Thank you for the message. I'll take a look at where the source can be integrated later today. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Darwinbloke83:, I apologize that it's taken me this long to add the reference, but it is now there. I thought it was necessary because the article does not have any indication that Aussie participation is more than some terrorist designations and condemnations, which is obviously an incorrect impression to leave with readers. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have re-written the FRINGE entry and removed the old one from both the aforesaid noticeboard and the related talk page. The noticeboard should now direct to a far more focused sub-heading within the talk-page and while I appreciate your attempts, I think for clarity, it's best to leave everything where it is now. Specifically to have the intro on the Fringe noticeboard but the full detailing, on the talk page. Boundarylayer (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I still don't agree that the issue you've raised has anything to do with fringe theories but the revised post and the explicit statement as to why you think it is fringe is a vast improvement. I will let others continue the discussion, I think I made my point already. Thank you for the revision and for cleaning up the noticeboard and talk page. Best of luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

On 27 October 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 1982 Bristow Helicopters Bell 212 crash, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1982 Bristow Helicopters Bell 212 crash was one of three fatal helicopter accidents Bristow Helicopters suffered in little more than a year in the North Sea? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1982 Bristow Helicopters Bell 212 crash. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 1982 Bristow Helicopters Bell 212 crash), 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.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I want to restore some articles. Wisalahmad523 (talk) 05:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Wisalahmad523:, I have answered on your talk page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have made an effort to get down to this at long last but was unsurprised to fall at the first fence. You told me to click the link in the Table of Contents for the category of article ... - but where do I find that page? I interrogated Wiki - Table of Contents - but that was clearly not the right place.MontagueAmiel (talk) 12:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

@MontagueAmiel:, I'm sorry that didn't work correctly for you, try this link instead. Scroll down the page until you see the "Composer" section and click the "[Edit]" link. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I wrote a bigraphy of a doctor that has significant contribution in Music and noble deeds by providing jobs even if he is in US. I published an article with the following significance:

1. A recording artist in the Philippines that promotes Filipino music or OPM 2. He is recording artist Doctor but now residing in US and yet he still significantly help Filipinos by employing them in his businesses in California 3. He is a recording artist that promotes love among Filipinos thru music 4. He is underrated singer but with huge contribution in Music. In fact he won an Awit Awards on 1993 and got a Gold Records 5. He is a Doctor and a recording artist in US collaborating to US-based songwriters

Can you enlighten me if these are valid to be published in Wikipedia?

Thank you and best regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvinglori (talk • contribs) 22:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Alvinglori:, it is difficult to judge whether an article subject is eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia from what you've posted here. I will therefore speak generally about the inclusion criteria Wikipedia uses. The first thing to note is that articles are not eligible for inclusion or not but instead article subjects are. It's a significant difference: An article on an ineligible subject, no matter how well-written, is still not going to be retained. The standard that we use for subjects is Notability. Notability in Wikipedia terms is a little bit different from the general English meaning of that term. Here it means that you need to demonstrate that significant coverage (that is, more than just a paragraph or two or a simple directory listing) in independent sources (ones not connected to the subject itself or one of their projects/organizations) that are reliable (ones that demonstrate journalistic selectivity and judgment) exists for the article to pass the notability guideline. If you can provide such sources in the article about this doctor/musician, then it will survive. I strongly urge you to read the links I provided here and in the note I left on your talk page for more information. Good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

02:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

All that said at ANI, this represents a real and growing problem. Flashmobs, essentially, can take an article over, and the current solution is often mobbing it right back, with admins generally looking the other way at 3RR violations, obvious tag teaming, &cet. The Snopes article is a great example of that; every so often a couple of Phrogboiz would show up, and the rest of us would respond in a way that suggested mattressing a patient in a psych ward. Often, that process can start even though the particular edit is justified, and the the particular writer is competent and acting in good faith. Whether this article is the right test case looking at a better solution is another question, but this is a real problem. Anmccaff (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Anmccaff:, thank you for the message and I agree that this is a problem. 4chan, after all, is notorious for organizing "invasions" of other sites, and that's only one of multiple off-wiki venues for launching disruptive activity. Our standard procedures are based on editors who want to help and are, and have been from the beginning, vulnerable to playing on AGF. I don't in general like test cases, however, and this article in particular seems like a poor test case. To draw an American-centric analogy, what I saw on looking into the underlying dispute was more similar to an Infowars devotee trying to "correct" the portrayal of, say, Barack Obama's citizenship. A separate RfC may be an option, but I'm at a loss as to what the RfC would suggest as a solution. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

To draw an other America-centric analogy, a good bit of policy is a bit like contesting a constitutional violation: you have to get charged with something first to get an actual decision, and I think that slows down some needed change, too. But yeah, in this particular article, there's too much legitimate room for reasonable people of goodwill to form different conclusions to censure either side. Anmccaff (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Good morning, I am the person that requested to add the new section to the American Black Bear page, But i just realized that I requested to put it under the wrong section. I meant to request it go under the "Hibernation" section. Thanks and sorry for the confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wagner528 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Wagner528:, not a problem, and thank you for clarifying. To preserve clarity, please add a new edit request with the section heading of "hibernation" and include both the text you believe is in error and the text you would like to see. If I don't get to it, I'm sure some-one else will. Thanks again~. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

you (or whomever) should make Wikipedia (communication, edits, etc...) more user friendly. Seems quite archaic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Big wheel (talk • contribs) 16:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Big wheel:, since Wikipedia has a global audience and I have no way of knowing what any random editor even from my own country (USA) considers "friendly", much less one from Nigeria, India, the Philippines, Japan, Australia, etc., I don't try to leave friendly messages for editors with whom I have not previously interacted. I leave messages that are polite and professional in tone, which is what I left on your talk page. If you object to that tone, then I am honestly sorry for any distress I caused. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Eggishorn. I noticed that you reverted my changes in the Blue Whale (game) article, the reason being that "Neither story identifies any authors, sources or victims. These are speculative at very best." I think Alarabiya and BBC Arabic are valid resources to begin with, and I'm not far off in my citation than other parts in the article. I'm not sure I understand your basis for deleting what I added. --Modi mode (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Modi mode:, thank you for asking me for my reasoning. As the page on reliable sources indicates, reliability is not an absolute quality of any source. the media source may be generally reliable but individual stories carried by those media may not be. In this case, while Al-Aribiya and BBC Arabic count as generally reliable, we need to be very careful about any source making claim connected to this "game". Many, if not most, news stories about this have fallen apart on closer inspection. Stories that don't identify who is making the claims of connected deaths, why they are authoritative about the claim, where or when these supposed deaths happen, to whom, or have any reasonable documentation of a connection to this "game" are not reliable, even when reported in such generally-reliable media. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Eggishorn:, Thank you for the elaboration, this would certainly help me when I make future contributions. So There needs to be mention of the reporter's name, a police spokesman, other country/city officials, or at least the victim name?

• If that was the case, the links cited had:

1. Alarabiya link specifies the victim name as Abdulrahman Hashaishi (https://www.alarabiya.net/ar/north-africa/2017/12/04/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%A6%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%B7%D9%81%D9%84-%D8%AB%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A-%D8%A8%D8%B3%D8%A8%D8%A8-%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%A8%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%88%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%B2%D8%B1%D9%82.html)
2. BBC Arabic link has a video that mentions the same victim by name, interviews his father, interviews a local psychiatrist, interviews a local information technology specialist, and shows footage of the Postage and Communication Technology minister Hoda Faroun discussing this game.

There are numerous other links I can provide, all mentioning victim names, places of residence, official Algerian newspapers linking suicide victims to the game, etc.

I am just as skeptical of the extent of this moral panic as the next guy, but I think we can list the "claims" that these supposedly respectable news outlets are making, and label them as "claims" outright.

• Please tell me how is the deleted Algeria section is any different than Bangladesh or Brazil sections in the article? I'm not sure what makes their citation more reliable than mine.

@Modi mode: I'll answer the last question first in that edits are usually assess by other editors individually. So when you added your edits, no-one (myself obviously included) was inclined to read through the entire sequence of claims to make sure they were all up to the same standard. That is what we'd like to have happen, obviously. An all-volunteer editing staff, however, imposes some practicalities.

All that said, your explanations of the sources are much better than they first appeared to me. I will not object if you re-add them, although I would suggest that you not simply re-revert. For one, there is more detail here then in the original text which should be included. Secondly, it still needs to be made clear that, while these are claims from authorities and family, they are still claims. As you say, this is a moral panic and people who successfully commit suicide are notoriously uncommunicative afterwards about whether they were actually motivated by a game. Best of luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Eggishorn:, thanks again. Its always easy to forget that Wikipedia is the sum of individual volunteer efforts. This exchange will definitely make my future contributions more durable and up to the standards. --Modi mode (talk) 07:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Modi mode:, I happy that my explanations helped. Thanks again and best wishes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 12:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Eggishorn:, apologies in advance, but if you could please have a look at the article again? I added that segment after taking into consideration all your comments, but it was deleted again by another user! --Modi mode (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hey Eggishorn. Would you mind having a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiu Yeng Ho since you have contributed to many closely related topics and have a level of expertise in this field? Thanks. Cashannam (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Cashannam:, this request borders on the type of behavior discussed in the canvassing guidelines. Although you did not ask for an opinion one way or another, it could be seen as ...notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. Because you did not ask for a particular outcome, however, I will take a look at the AfD when I get a chance but I offer no other assurances. Thank you for your understanding. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Eggishorn, i forgot to insert "block evasion" to edit summary. The user had a huge list of sock just for the subject being AfD, Ho Chiu Yeng aka Sabrina Ho aka Sabrina Ho Chiu Yeng, that was deleted for {{db-a7}}. Feel free to review the article and comment on the Afd. Matthew_hk tc 14:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Matthew hk:, thank you for the explanation. You have probably already seen this by the time I reply here, but I did comment review the article and found it matches the pattern of paid PR articles that attempt to establish notability through pure refbombing. I therefore !voted for Delete. I sincerely doubt that the article subject could ever become notable on their own merits. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

With such wealth for those tycoon families of Macau and Hong Kong, i would say those PR-tone articles for their successor in leading the family businesses, would be plenty. I would say each case should be viewed case by case basis, and after google, seem Ho Chiu Yeng had business partnership with forbes, making those coverage by forbes invalid, so in this case more likely a social celebrity that similar to Paris Hilton (minus her acting career), which, full of news coverage by tabloid journalism. Matthew_hk tc 15:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Forbes, like the Huffington Post, allows for website articles that are not by Forbes writers or under Forbes' editorial control. The articles from "Forbes" on the page in question are such not-really-from-Forbes articles. In other words, I don't think a business partnership between the subject's family and Forbes is to blame. You could become a "Forbes Contributor" right now if you wished, and if some-one paid you to become one, then, well.... That's why RS are not blanket decisions. Sometimes a generally-respected source like Forbes or the Times (any of them) is worthless and sometimes a generally-disrespected source like the Daily Mail is right. So case-by-case decisions apply to sources as well as subjects. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I forgot to add even to the wording, even written by Forbes/Forbes Asia staff, due to business relationship, it hardly an independent secondary source. (this article seem published to the print issue of Forbes Asia and by a contributor) People likes to read tabloid journalism regarding the life of those billionaire, which Forbes Asia towards that direction. Given the Ho family had the wealth to influence half of the Macau economy, those media from Macau hardly an independent secondary source. According to the interview by Hong Kong media Ming Bao regarding her project with UNESCO and a hotel renovation, it hit the borderline YES/NO on WP:GNG, just like the borderline case of Daryl Ng that was interview by New York Times due to his Tai O project. Matthew_hk tc 15:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Widr (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hoping this means "balance" is in fact valued in Wikipedia. Thanks if you reconsider your objection accordingly. Policy shortcut WP:BALANCE Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." (2602:304:CFA5:42A0:2C3F:64DB:95C8:530A (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC))Reply

Ip user, please 1) keep discussions together so they can be followed in one place, in this case on the article talk page, and 2)as you have been previously informed, put new sections at the bottom of talk pages. This is easily done by clicking the "new section" tab at the top of every talk page. I will reply to the substance of your comment at Talk:Iben Browning. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Eggishorn. I recently put up an edit request on the Cristiano Ronaldo page. The motive behind my request was a simple truism. It is nothing personal. I have not requested to 'have Ronaldo proclaimed as the greatest of all time' or any other thing like that. Of course, no sportsman, in any sport can be called the 'best in history. There have been different eras, different kinds of footballers. But the way Wikipedia describes players like Pelé, Maradona, Cruyff and Messi to be 'widely regarded the greatest of all time' and Cristiano Ronaldo as 'regarded as ONE OF the greatest of all time' is not good to see. My request was to simply remove the 'ONE OF' in the sentence, as it is with the four mentioned players, because we Portuguese, along with a majority of the world, believe that Ronaldo is up there with the greatest. If not, the greatest of all, for many.

And I am sorry if my language in the request was a bit rough. I never meant to offend.

Thanking you, regards

André

@André53:, thank you for contacting me here. In the future, please remember to sign your posts on talk page correctly. This is as simple as typing a row of four tilde characters (~~~~). To answer your question, what happens on one page does not control what happens on another. If anything, what you say shows that Pelé, Maradona, Cruyff and Messi need to have the "one of the" phrase added, not to have it removed from Renaldo. I will propose those changes on those pages later. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I have added a comment to this discussion on the Redditch talk page. I propose to remove the assertion from the article, if you don't object. Thanks Malevan (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Malevan:, it obviously offends you but it's also obviously used without qualification by the local paper. I don't see why this is an issue but retaining this has no importance to me and I won't be obstructionist. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Just read that newspaper article Malevan (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello again @Eggishorn No, I do not really request for the 'ONE OF' phrase to be added to the pages of Pelé, Maradona, Cruyff or Messi, because it is true that each one of them is in fact widely regarded as the greatest of all time by their specific fan bases.

I rather requested for the phrase 'ONE OF' to be removed from Cristiano Ronaldo's page, because Ronaldo as well is widely considered the greatest of all time by many.

Thanking you,

Regards, André André53 (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@André53:, I know what you asked for. I specifically responded to what you asked for but I don't agree that what you asked for is going to happen. The Core Content Policies are binding on all of us, no matter which fan base to which we belong. Myself, while I am a American soccer follower, I don't have a favorite player or one I think is the best. I think the designation is meaningless, actually. But that's my personal feeling so I don't remove any reference to such terms from articles because if I did so it would break those policies. Do you see what I'm saying? Opinions are not facts and can't be stated as such, which is what "the greatest" implies. The opinions of multitudes are worth noting, perhaps, but they still remain opinions. We all agree to follow those policies as a condition to post on this site. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@André53:, one further correction: The lead of Johan Cruyff states "...and is widely regarded as one of the greatest players in football history." So Cruyff is a red herring in this discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Messi is regarded by many as the greatest of all time. I’ll happily provide numerous citations to back this. SonqreQ (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@SonqreQ:, did you read the statement I left on the talkpage? I'm certain that you can find citations that say Messi is "regarded by many as the greatest of all time" just as you can find many citations that Pelé is "widely regarded as the greatest football player in history" and Maradona is ""widely regarded as the greatest football player ever". That's not the point. To comply with the WP:NPOV policy, we shouldn't be saying in Wikipedia's voice that all of them, plus Ronaldo and Cruyff and Ronaldinho who knows who else are "the greatest" no matter how many cites any one fan can find. We are not a fan site, we are an encyclopedia. The very fact that there are competing claims for the same thing means that all of them are, in fact, widely regarded as one of the best of all time. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

The thing is, there are many sport figures and commentators that state Messi is. Ronaldo doesn’t have as much citations as Messi. Of course it isn’t a fan site, so I provided credible opinions. SonqreQ (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

These citations aren’t fans saying so.

SonqreQ (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@SonqreQ: For every sports figure or commentator you can provide about Messi another sports figure or commentator will say the same about Ronaldo, such as Zadane saying it here. The thing is, no matter how respected a sports journalist is, they are also fans of the sport and they still have fan-worthy opinions about unsolvable debates like this. It looks silly for Wikipedia to be descending into a debate that is non-factual and entirely opinion-based which has no answer. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Then, why on Earth is the sentence included on this encyclopaedic site? The sentence refers to the public’s perception of each player. Not everything on Wikipedia is related to concrete facts. There are subjective criticisms on many, many different Wikipedia pages. And to denounce a journalist’s credibility means the individual awards—with meritorious opinions that follow—are null and void. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SonqreQ (talk • contribs) 16:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@SonqreQ:, everything you say in your second through fourth sentence is perfectly correct. It also perfectly applies to all the players equally. Acknowledging that all of them are "one of the greatest" acknowledges all that for all of them equally and does not denigrate any one of them. Your last sentence is completely illogical, however. I never denounced anyone's credibility. In fact, the problem is that to take any one opinion on "the greatest" seriously, we need to take them all seriously. As I said at Talk:Diego Maradona, "There's no logical cut-off for where one opinion is acceptable and citable and another isn't so we might as well acknowledge them all." There are simply too many "serious" opinions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

If there are too many serious opinions, then they should be taken seriously. You called journalists “fans,” also; which, might be true—but they are giving their opinions as critics of the sport. This whole Ronaldo-isn’t-mentioned-as-the-best-so-why-should-Messi-be logic is to appease his fan’s own worries. You’re not overlooking all the salient opinions, but you are ignoring the general consensus. Pele, Maradona, and Messi are generally considered the greatest ever by former players, current players, managers, and analysts. Ronaldo isn’t. And he doesn’t have an abundance citations from credible publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SonqreQ (talk • contribs) 17:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I completely agree with SonreQ, I think in your attempt at objectivity, you are pandering to the demands of certain C Ronaldo fans who in this instance, are unhappy that Messi is considered among the three greatest of all time. Surely you are aware that the general consensus is that Pele, Maradona, and now Messi are the three players that are regularly regarded as the greatest of all time? You state that 'In fact, the problem is that to take any one opinion on "the greatest" seriously, we need to take them all seriously.' That is a very strange attitude to have. You will, I hope, accept that the number of opinions is also of value? If you do acknowledge this then it should be fairly clear that the general view is that Pele, Maradona, and Messi are considered to be in a class above the rest, and there are plenty of articles and citations that can be provided to back this up. Worryingly, you also said "There's no logical cut-off for where one opinion is acceptable and citable and another isn't so we might as well acknowledge them all..' I hope you are aware that team mates and current manager's opinions will often be biased, and in the case of C Ronaldo, his own opinion of himself. O'Flannery (talk) 02:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@O'Flannery:, this may have started because two Ronaldo fans were using the recent Ballon d'Or win to attempt to claim he deserves the same treatment as Messi, etc. but I am not motivated to satisfy them. If I was, I would have edited his page and not Messi, etc.'s pages. Here's the thing, there is no consensus on the greatest and I've seen not only the three you list but Cruyff, Ronaldinho, and, yes, Ronaldo all "regularly regarded" as the best of all time, all by different fan bases. It really depends on where one lives and what coverage you get and what language you speak and how old the writer is as to which two of those six get included in the regular, "Is x or Y better/the best/the best of all time?" type articles. The problem with all of them is that they rarely actually qualify under our Reliable sources policy. The vast majority of the "expert opinions" are clickbait (or their dead-tree equivalent). And lastly, and perhaps most importantly, I do not recognize that the three you list are, in fact, the only ones "considered in a class above the rest." They may be the three you've seen most often recognized, but I did actually do some research before I went and altered three high-profile articles. There are sources for any of those named here that call them the best of all time, and many of those opinions would be as authoritative. Calling them any selection or sub-selection "regarded as the best" is simply not aligned with the sourcing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the explanation, and I do agree with many points you have made. Especially with regards to the different factors affecting who is considered the greatest. I must disagree, however, with regards to the three players who are generally considered to be the greatest of all time. I believe there are many, many credible sources which can back up claims that 'many' consider Pele, Maradona, and Messi as the greatest of all time. There are simply not an abundance of sources claiming the same for other players, perhaps with an exception being made for Cruyff. As mentioned previously, this has all come about because a number of C Ronaldo fans are upset that Messi is generally considered along side Maradona and Pele, whereas C Ronaldo is not. In fact, not so long ago a number of C Ronaldo fans were relentlessly rediting his page, wanting it to read 'regarded by many as the greatest of all time' and the sources used to back up this claim were laughable. In conclusion, I have seen Maradona, Pele, and Messi named as the three greatest of all time on many occasions, enough for it to be seen as a widely held opinion (although obviously not by everyone, hence the 'regarded by many as the greatest of all time' being a suitable sentence on their pages), which is something that can not be said for the likes of Zidane, C Ronaldo etc. as the sources to back up such claims is sparse in comparison. O'Flannery (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@O'Flannery:, you seem really, really wedded to the idea that your preferred three are in a class of themselves above all others and you've got one really good source for that, (The fourfourtwo listing). I don't think you can't say the same for some of these others. It's simplest and most factual to treat them all the same and use "one of". I'm not convinced that there is any way of adequately sourcing "..widely regarded as the..." versus "...widely regarded as one of the..." I just think there's too many sourcing issues to prefer the first formulation over the second.

It ultimately comes down to pre-conceived opinions. Let me change sports for a moment and I'll explain what I mean. Take NBA players. If we were to try to define the same formulations for, say, Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, and LeBron James, it would be defensible on its face. You could find cites that said "the best of all time" for each. But then as we continue to look, we'd also have to consider Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Charles Barkley, Shaquille O'Neill, Tim Duncan, and then old farts like me will toss in Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Wilt Chamberlain, Oscar Robertson, Bill Russell, Julius Erving, and more. Then we have to determine why a cite for Michael Jordan beats a cite for Bill Russell, or why 3 for Wilt Chamberlain aren't as authoritative as 1 for Oscar Robertson.

That is the issue with trying to find WP:RS for "one of" versus "the". You, me, the Ronaldo fans, the Ip users, we'll all do the same thing and say that the cites that pick our position are better. We've inevitably arrived at those preferences first, and then we find cites to support them. That's just human nature. And what's worse, the sources we're relying on did the same thing even before we went and looked for them.

Picking a preferred trinity of "the best" versus "one of the best" is a fools errand and, ultimately, does not fit our core content policies. Happy New Year. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I do see your point, and you are probably right that it is a fools errand. However, I would like to clarify my opinion. You said 'You seem really, really wedded to the idea that your preferred three are in a class of themselves above all others', This is because they are the three that are consistently referred to as being the greatest, by journalists, commentators, footballers, ex footballers. It is not necessarily my preferred three, it is just what is commenly stated. I only provided the FourFourTwo link as it is the most recent, there are plenty of others that I could provide (although I agree with what you are saying regarding citations and deciding which are more authoritative than others). However, I think it would be perfectly fine to say 'regarded by many as the greatest of all time' on the Pele, Maradona and Messi page, as this can easily be back up with many credible sources. Whereas, the term 'regarded by many..' can not be readily backed up with plenty of sources for other footballers (if you saw the citations being used to defend the claim regarding C Ronaldo, then you would see what I mean), which is why I have suggested that those three are generally held in higher regard than the rest. Happy New Year! O'Flannery (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply