User talk:Mortee/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

71.223.16.174

I added the report, but then discovered that Huggle let me include edits that happened several weeks prior. There were only two recent edits. So, I removed the report least an admin would decline to block. wp:Huggle has a few bugs, or more. Thanks for the relist. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The anon's first edits weren't that bad... Perhaps hoping to be ignored later. Jim1138 (talk) 10:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jim1138: They definitely seemed to get worse. Shame. At least they've gone quiet for now. Hopefully an admin will intervene shortly. Mortee (talk) 10:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Involuntary celibacy

Thanks for your feedback on the draft. I would have probably created it myself if it weren't protected for creation, so only admins can create it (as you know). I can certainly add some content to the article as it exists now, to try to flesh it out to the point that it adds to the Reddit page section. I'm not sure whether even then it would be worthy of being accepted (but maybe if you add the deleted versions of involuntary celibacy and r/incels together, you might get a notable topic). Hopefully, then, the article could be moved into mainspace without a need for discussion on a talk page, since it wouldn't really be a split if it weren't just about r/incels. I've also added a quote from one of the sources which I think verifies that mass shooters are sometimes incels, rather than it just being SYNTH to claim that they are. Let me know if you have any more concerns about the draft. Everymorning (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Everymorning. The extension improves it, I think, as does the quote. The Elle link was broken when I reviewed it yesterday so I was going mostly on Salon piece. I think a talk page conversation would still be better, since there have been merge and deletion debates before, but perhaps an admin on AfC will choose to publish it. It's pretty clearly a notable topic, it's just a question of how best to structure it across pages. Best of luck with it. Mortee (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

DRAFT: Ruin (punk band)

Thanks for your comments on my draft, Mortee. I think they make the article read better. I was not sure what you meant exactly with your recommendation that I consider "another [citation?] making the comparison to the other bands, etc." Does this refer to the sentence: "Ruin employed theatrical elements that were not only alien to punk rock, but even anathema to its aesthetics of unadorned simplicity"? That assertion would not be difficult to cite because most books on American underground rock mention something to this effect. Should I do so? I hope I made the changes your suggested in a satisfactory way. Please let me know. And thanks again. I really appreciate it.

Eliswinterabend — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliswinterabend (talk • contribs) 20:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Eliswinterabend, sorry, that was a mistake on my part. I didn't mean bands. I was referring to this: "While these elements have more in common with Antonin Artaud's Theatre of Cruelty or Guy Debord's Society of the Spectacle...". That feels like original research to me—the kind of observation that would be impressive in an essay, but might get challenged on Wikipedia. Anyway, I'm happy to publish this and see it worked on in mainspace. There's some broken markup about an image in there right now. Is that a placeholder for an image that can't be added until afterwards, or just a bug? Mortee (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Mortee, yes, I see your point. I could cite a source, a published interview, where Adams makes these references. About the image: I originally included an image of the band (on the right of the text on my PC). Someone from Wikipedia tagged it as not following proper usage guidelines. I replied to him that the photographer, who is a friend of mine, gave me permission via email to tag it as a free for unrestricted usage (I don't have the actual designation handy). After I replied, his objection seemed to disappear, but, apparently, so has the image. Thanks again for your help. EW 21:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC) Eliswinterabend (talk)

Okay, thanks for the info on the image issue, Mortee. I will delete the image, and add one later once I can get the proper licensing. Eliswinterabend (talk)

Mortee (talk) I am confused about the rejection of my Ruin article. You said you were inclined to accept and suggested improvements. I made the suggested improvements, and then the article got rejected. What changes should I make to reverse this decision? Thank you. Eliswinterabend (talk)

• @Eliswinterabend: I think it's probably because it still has the section with the Theatre of Cruelty etc in it. I feel a bit bad for having left the review static. If you'd like, I could take a friendly scalpel to it and publish it in a somewhat reduced form to get it out of the door—prune the flourishes. Anything you particularly wanted to keep we can discuss on the talk page after or you can work back in with references. I imagine AfC is starting to feel a little like a hamster wheel for you. Mortee (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Dang, Mortee (talk), that's a great offer. Yes, please do. Just to be sure when MadeYourReadThis (talk) referred to "reviewers" in his rejection, he really meant "reviewer," namely you? Prune away! (I could also add a reference to the Theater of Cruelty, etc. aspect. Adams, the singer, consciously introduced those elements, and discusses them at length in the Loud!Fast!Philly! interview. Come to think of it, I believe I did add that ref. after one of your comments.) Peace and thanks, Eliswinterabend (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Eliswinterabend: I'll make some changes and check with MadeYourReadThis before shipping anything that it's met their concerns as well as mine. Hopefully it should be straightforward enough. If you've got references to hand, by all means stick them in. I'm tinkering with my City of London swords article just now but I'll get to it this evening. Mortee (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

22:15:33, 18 January 2018 review of submission by Shmupo

• Shmupo (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Israel's Lookout (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Mortee, Thanks for the feedback. I went (again) through all of the referenced sources to check for mistakes. They all have a direct refernce to Israel's Lookout or it's common nicknames: Israel's Balcony (or The Balcony of Israel), Israel's Porch, Arik's Porch or Porch of the Nation. Just search the articles for the words "lookout" or "porch" and I'm sure you'll find it. The only exception is reference number 8 (YNETNews) which doesn't state the site specifically but has clear photos showing the event took place at Israel's Lookout. If it is necessary - this reference can be removed. Thanks and have a great weekend Shmupo (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Shmupo I looked through the first five yesterday and didn't see the word "lookout" anywhere. Looking for the other terms you mentioned there's more, that's true:

1. [1] does say "Arik's Porch"
2. [2] doesn't include "lookout", "bench" or "porch" as far as Chrome can see.
3. [3] does say "the porch of the nation"
4. [4] does say "the back porch of the nation" (albeit referring to Peduel, not obviously to the vista point)
5. [5] does say "porch"

Which of the sources talk about "Israel's lookout" verbatim? If it's more commonly the "porch of the nation" or similar, might the article be better titled that way?

Either way, my impression is that this would be worth having an article about but until there are some sources that are about the lookout, rather than just mentioning it (WP:SIGCOV), it would be at risk if it went to articles for deletion, which is no fun for anyone. I'd still suggest looking for sources that go more in depth about it and then resubmitting. The article looks good and I like the work you've done on it. As I say, the only question that would be raised as I see it is about depth of coverage. Mortee (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Mortee, I'd be happy to refernce more deeper sources dealing with the site, the problem is that they are all in Hebrew (some of them are linked to the Hebrew Wiki page on the site). What do you suggest? I'd appreciate your advise Shmupo (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

For the name issue, how about using {{efn}} to write a note, separate from the references? You could use that as a place to explain in English which of the main references establish "Israel's Lookout" as the right name for the vista point and add context like "(the biggest selling daily newspaper in Israel)" where appropriate, without having to work that into the main text. For notability, if it's possible to find some English equivalents that's helpful of course, but explicitly not required by the guidelines. You can also use the |quote= parameter of {{cite web}} if it would be helpful, like so: (please forgive the Google translation; I don't know any Hebrew)

Author, Mrs. "מאמר" [article]. אתר אינטרנט (in Hebrew). Retrieved 19 January 2018. לתצפית הישראלית יש השקפה נהדרת (Israel's Lookout has a great view) {{cite web}}: |last1= has generic name (help)

I hope that helps. Mortee (talk) 11:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

City of London swords

I noticed that in City of London swords#Pearl Sword it mentions Ralph Warren. Do you know if that is the same person as Ralph Warren (Lord Mayor)? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Good catch @CambridgeBayWeather: it has to be. There can't have been too many Sir Ralph Warrens around at the same time and the sword was given two years after his term as Lord Mayor. I've added the wikilink now. Mortee (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Cruz del Campo

See the Draft talk:Cruz del Campo please, read that i posted and answer. thanks--ILoveCaracas (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi ILoveCaracas, I saw that you posted there. What I meant was that you could raise the issue on Talk:Via Crucis to the Cruz del Campo, where other editors who are involved in writing about this will see it. At Articles for Creation only random reviewers like me will come across it, and the process is only designed to help make new articles, not change existing ones, which is part of what would be involved in this case. Mortee (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

But you can help please since still fewer people would see the talk page of Via Crucis to the Cruz del Campo. Vía Crucis to the Cruz del Campo translated into English means "Catholic Route until Cruz del Campo". do you understand?--ILoveCaracas (talk) 09:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

you agree to decline the draft: cross the field like you did? if not I ask you to reverse what you just did--ILoveCaracas (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's true that fewer people will see the talk page of Via Crucis to the Cruz del Campo. I do understand the issue—the existing article is about a route, and includes a large section on the Templete at one end of it. You'd prefer the Templete to have its own article instead. That's a perfectly reasonable argument and I think it's best handled starting with a discussion on the Via Crucis to the Cruz del Campo talk page. You can use the draft you've started to help show the people there what you're proposing. If no-one replies there then of course you can split the article yourself. You can also resubmit the draft to AfC if you prefer, once you've fixed it. As I said in my review of the current version, the wording in it is too confusing at the moment for me to publish. Please understand that I've declined that version of the draft: you can always work on it and then submit it again at any point. Many articles at AfC get rejected several times before they're ready to be published. Mortee (talk) 09:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok then i will follow your advice. I appreciate you--ILoveCaracas (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@ILoveCaracas: great :-) If you want more help another time, you're welcome to message me here. Mortee (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

M'Bona Cult

Hi Mortee,

Thank you for reviewing this draft article and your helpful comments. I will take your advice on creating articles directly.

Best wishes,

Sscoulsdon (talk) 10:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

05:02:51, 23 January 2018 review of submission by NuSkooler

• NuSkooler (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:ENiGMA½ BBS Software (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

NuSkooler (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi NuSkooler your message came out blank—did you want to ask something about the draft? Mortee (talk) 12:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

That's odd. Anyway yes, I have a question regarding the review. It (looks) like it's not passing due to "official release date" references. I'm the author of ENiGMA 1/2 BBS software. The Reddit posting is the official release announcement. If that's not acceptable, do you have suggestions for what would be? There aren't exactly news/magazine articles around BBS software generally -- especially in 2018. Most of the announcements are either on forums such as Reddit, or within the BBS community itself (e.g. FidoNet networks).

Note that I did update the license: It's released under the BSD 2-Clause, not proprietary/commercial.

@NuSkooler: fair point about the Reddit link. If it's the official announcement then it's hard to think what would establish the date better. I declined it on WP:N grounds, though. Establishing the facts is only half the reason articles need references. The other half is to show that the subject is notable, in the sense of being widely discussed or having an impact in some field that means there should be an encyclopedia article about it. That's also part of why Wikipedia prefers references that are independent. So far the draft doesn't have references I could see that show that.

If you're the author of the software, could you check that you've read WP:COI and mention your relationship to the software on the article's talk page? Writing an article about something you're involved with is OK if you go through AfC, which you're doing; it's just best to be clear. I hope this helps. PS - you can sign your messages using ~~~~ Mortee (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Origin of the Albanians

Hi, thanks for reviewing this. Submitting user is currently blocked because of their behaviour, username and purpose which was to demonstrate that "Albanians have a poor culture". Their draft is a POV fork of Origin of the Albanians. The difference between the two is that the current article aims to present different academic theories about origin of the Albanians, their draft aims to prove that academics are not telling the truth. Their draft uses outdated and fringe sources of the Milosevic era such as Sotirovic and Burovic. In other words, their draft has its roots in Nationalism, hence the hard block. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991: thanks for confirming. I've declined the draft now. Mortee (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

15:00:46, 27 January 2018 review of submission by PhysicsCali

• PhysicsCali (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Margaret Burbidge Award (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you Mortee 1. Secondary references included: The award recipients are usually reported by the universities or institutes they work with. 2. I am a physics student at UC and declare no conflict of interest. The purpose of creating this article is to include more notable physics events.

---

PhysicsCali (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi @PhysicsCali: that's great, thank you. I'm all in favour of more coverage for physics events, and the new sources you've added are definitely an improvement. I'll leave the new draft for now in hopes that someone else will review it (always good to have more eyes). I'd say there's a good chance of it being approved. Small thing: next time, please don't delete reviewer comments if you're resubmitting an article. They can be useful for reviewers of later drafts and they're deleted automatically when a draft is accepted. Mortee (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

16:49:25, 27 January 2018 review of submission by PhysicsCali

• PhysicsCali (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Margaret Burbidge Award (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for the suggestion! I have undone the comment deletion. PhysicsCali (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@PhysicsCali: grand, thank you

DYK for Men of Good Will

On 31 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Men of Good Will, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that at two million words, Men of Good Will by Jules Romains is one of the longest novels ever written? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Men of Good Will. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Men of Good Will), 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) 15:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Amphitheatre of Catania

You recently tagged the article about the Amphitheatre of Catania for WikiProject History. Most articles about Roman history are actually covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. Could you tag relevant articles for this Project? Dimadick (talk) 11:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dimadick, absolutely. I'll try to remember that next time I encounter a new article in that area. Sorry for getting this one wrong. Mortee (talk) 11:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to check, should I be tagging those articles with both history and the more specific project, or just the more specific one? Mortee (talk) 11:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Usually the more specific one. It seems to be more active than WikiProject History. Dimadick (talk) 11:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Help

Hi Mortee, may I ask you for a little help with the way to put the ref links on english correctly? Is this example below correct? I'm probably missing something, and I'm not sure the order is right:

please let me know, so once I get thet form right I can fix all of the links on the entries and avoid mistakes Thanks! Agustin6

Agustin6, if you're copying references directly from another language Wiki, then it's probably either to just copy them directly - we have templates like {{cita news}} that are designed to handle those refs. If you're adding them by hand, then I highly suggest using the refToolbar to automatically populate the correct fields.

As for your direct question, the main issue is that it's |title= not |títle=. It's also |accessdate=, and we use |publisher= (not |editorial=). Primefac (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Thanks Primefac! I'd never encountered {{cita news}}. I'm glad to see there's {{literatur}} for German, too. I can't see an equivalent for web references, sadly. Agustin6, here's an example to show what Primefac means about parameters. By the way, signing with ~~~~ takes some getting used to (I kept forgetting it when I started) but it's useful adds a timestamp Mortee (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

References

DYK for City of London swords

On 5 February 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article City of London swords, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Queen Elizabeth II planned to hit Idi Amin with the Pearl Sword if he came to her Silver Jubilee, according to Lord Mountbatten? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/City of London swords. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, City of London swords), 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.

— Maile (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Sudden Rush

On 25 February 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sudden Rush, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Sudden Rush was the first group to record nā mele paleoleo (Hawaiian hip hop)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sudden Rush. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sudden Rush), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Noah Oppenheim

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Noah Oppenheim. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

King Edward Tower

Hello there. You sent me a message about a copyvio on King Edward Tower. I didn't add that text. If you check the edits you'll see that sentence about the shipping containers was already there. All I did was add a reference. I'm a bit reference obsessed. I'm the last person to break copyvio! Seaweed (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Seaweed: I'm so sorry for the confusion! I don't know how I messed that up. Thank you very much for letting me know. Mortee (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

No problem at all. Seaweed (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Leeza Meksin

Greetings; thank you for your edits here. You applied a CSD tag to this article, which I have regrettably had to remove because, in my opinion, notability is averred in the article text. It may well be that AfD would be an appropriate tag; I will leave that with you. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Anthony Bradbury: thank you. You're right of course. At the point I added the tag, it only consisted of the article title, but someone has since pasted in some contents. Perhaps the same will happen with the several others I tagged. Mortee (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

... and now it's deleted as a copy-paste move... but there doesn't seem to be another article about her. Presumably a two-stage publication of Draft:Leeza Meksin (though I now can't see the published article to be sure). All a bit strange. Mortee (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Jonathan Thompson deletion

Hi please try and assist me this article and person should not be deleted at all could you try and do what you can to remove the tag it seems very unfair it’s quite obvious that the person is noteworthy and the article has been cleaned up there are no 404 errors not and people seem to just have some form of downer on this guy he’s noteworthy that’s for sure and your comments were appreciated please can you help save this article from deletion are you experienced enough to Remove the tag ? 7 days have passed you see it’s clear people want to keep th article can you please help ? Retro arcade (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Retro arcade. I can't close the AfD discussion because I've been involved in it. Only an uninvolved editor can close a discussion (WP:NACD). So far it looks quite balanced and, at a guess, unless more editors weigh in, it will be closed as no consensus, meaning it wouldn't be deleted. I think the best thing at this stage is to leave the discussion alone and tidy the article further, where possible. I'll go in and structure the references at least. Mortee (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Jonathan Thompson page

Hi thanks for your speedy response I’ve no experience myself on this all I can see is the article started off not so good but now actually it’s not so bad the links all work and several of them the chap is the main subject of the whole article whatever you feel is best your advice much appreciated the chap has clearly been around for years even the article is rated as a “b” class on wiki scale surely counts for something ? Retro arcade (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Retro arcade: the rating doesn't count for very much because it represents one person's view on the state of the article 9 years ago (and that person wasn't especially experienced), but you've pointed out in the discussion that the rating exists and anyone who joins in later will presumably consider what made someone think it was a B-class article back then and whether they agree. Mortee (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi well the Jonathan Thompson page got deleted could you help with suggestions please as it seems Very unfair the page was cleaned up and the person is noteworthy is there anything you can do to help here ? After over 10 years on wiki it seems A shame can it be undone or will the page have to be re created etc ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retro arcade (talk • contribs) 08:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Retro arcade: I'm not interested in remaining involved myself. If you feel that the discussion was closed wrongly, the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review say you should take it up with the person who closed the discussion, and if after that you still want to challenge the decision, open a conversation at Deletion Review. Otherwise, there's nothing to stop you starting new articles on different but related topics, perhaps Retro gaming in the UK, if you're interested in improving Wikipedia's coverage in those areas. Mortee (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Clarification requested on username issue

Hi, thank you for your message on my talk page. Since you did not leave a reason why you believe my username might not conform to username policy, I’m kindly asking for an explanation here (per instructions on the template). Thanks! FistyQunt (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• @FistyQunt: Sure. It reads as vulgarly sexual. Fisty ~~ fisting, Qunt ~~ cunt. If you plan to stay and contribute, a username that doesn't raise similar connotations would stand you in better stead. Mortee (talk) 01:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

January 2018 review of submission by PhysicsCali Margaret Burbidge Award

Dear Mortee. Thank you again for reviewing my submission. However, it has been a couple mounths since your last review and this article has not been touched by another reviewer since then. I am wondering if you are willing to review this article again and let me know if any further imporvement needs to be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhysicsCali (talk • contribs) 14:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi PhysicsCali, thanks for reminding me. I've posted a request at the AfC help desk for someone to take a look as I'd still prefer to get a second pair of eyes if possible. Mortee (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Flag

Hi, Mortee.
I've noticed that you are an AfC reviewer but don't yet have the New Page Reviewer flag. Would you please consider heading over to PERM and requesting it? (check the flag requirements HERE)
As part of a larger plan to increase cooperation between New Page Patrol and Articles for creation, we are trying to get as many of the active AfC reviewers as possible under the NPR user flag (per this discussion). Unlike the AfC request list, the NPR flag carries no obligation to review new articles, so I'm not asking you to help out at New Page Patrol if you don't want to, just to request the flag.
Of course, if it is something you would be interested in, you can have a look at the NPP tutorial. Please mention that you are an active AfC reviewer in your application.
Cheers and thanks for helping out at AfC, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Insertcleverphrasehere. Sorry for my highly belated reply. After a few months away from Wikipedia my plan was to warm back up, wait til I was back to reviewing articles for creation and then request this right as you suggested I should. I've done so today but I did notice that, contra your message, WP:PERM says of NPR "Note: This is a 'use-it-or-lose-it' right." I don't know if I'll spend much of my time reviewing new pages and it's possible my request will be declined because of that. Still, I'm generally happy to help and I can see the benefit of aligning AfC and NPR more closely. › Mortee _talk 10:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Following up quickly to note that I now have the permission and I've ticked my name off the list. › Mortee _talk 23:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

On Horacio Verbitsky article

Hi Mortee, As you got more experience on wikipedia than me and thanked me about my edits on Horacio Verbitsky article, I wanted to asked you about what you think I'm doing wrong as all my edits on that article had been reverted. Thanks!

Agustin6 (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Agustin6:, sorry, I haven't been on Wikipedia in several months so I didn't see your message. Looking at the history, I think the message I sent you about Horacio Verbitsky was asking you to fix some citation errors, which look like they're fixed. I don't know anything much about the article itself. Are you still having trouble with that or other edits? I'm happy to help if I can. Mortee (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mortee; yes, I'm having troubles with every edit but I found it's not just me and I'm afraid it is not something you can fix just by yourself; On my Talk page on the spanish section an old librarian and user shared me some thoughts on the problems of the site https://es.wiki.x.io/wiki/Usuario_discusi%C3%B3n:Agustin6 (the user https://es.wiki.x.io/wiki/Usuario:Marcelo); It seems that a group of users reverts sistematically every edit that contradicts their right-wing POV, even if the edits had reliable sources; not even pretending to be neutral. (some of them seems to have tried to do the same on the spanish section, but I guess as it's smaller there is easy to keep control)

Here it's like wild west. I really thank you for being willing to help, but it seems the problem is just too big.

In my opinion this is something so potentially dangerous that it should be legislated, cause I'm sure that common people around the world uses Google and being firsts, remarked results Wikipedia's articles, they will believe and accept anything it says. Agustin6 (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Agustin6: I'm sorry to hear that you're still having trouble. Since I'm not familiar at all with the political issues involved, it might be true that I can't help on the content side. Nevertheless, if there are specific problems that arise where you think I might be useful, please do let me know. Best of luck, Mortee (talk) 23:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

PLEASE READ THE comments about HOLD ME FOR A WHILE

DONT BE A FU***ING IGNORANT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:191:5FA0:251E:A6:2E91:898B (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@2A02:908:191:5FA0:251E:A6:2E91:898B: My message was only to say that you shouldn't blank so much content without explaining why you're doing it. Because your IP address changes rapidly I didn't see anything in your edit history to suggest you had. I see you have actually posted on the talk page, which I should have checked. I'm sorry about that. Could I make a few suggestions?

1. Register an account on Wikipedia. It's not required, of course, but it can help people to see what you've done before.
2. Write edit summaries when you make big changes. That way anyone can see why you're doing it immediately, which can avoid misunderstandings.
3. Try not to take things personally. I can see that you're frustrated, but I didn't undo your change out of hostility. Explaining calmly can help a lot. Do let me know if I can help with any other editing.

Mortee (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Based on your latest content restoration...

TV must be the biggest disease of all :P--I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 15:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Harmony994: haha I've not seen the series, I just wanted to make the point in a way I hoped they'd understand. The show I've been watching most recently is Nailed It! so I'm no TV critic! Mortee (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Stay the F U C K up off my edits

If you have a problem, you can stay the F U C K up off my Edits, and stay the fuck off my pages too, you F U C K I N G D I C K H E A D. Quieresjoder (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@Quieresjoder: The edit I warned you for (which you took as a threat), and the draft I nominated for speedy deletion, plus your edit to Talk:Dick_(slang), were all poor. If it hadn't been me that corrected them, it would have been someone else. If you decide to start building an encylopedia instead, I'll be very happy and, if you'd like help with that, I'll help if I can. Either way, please don't post messages like this again. Mortee (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Teefa in Trouble

Hi, thanks for your contributions! I have seen your previous edit on the page, where the main purpose was to insert the title in the reference (by the tool you used), that was removed by some anonymous. Using the parameters "|last=|first=", in Pakistani English we don't break names and write in one order only (Nadia Faisal). So, I didn't see any special fix, except most of unsourced anonymous edits and a WP:'. Hope you understand, I am waiting for your comment. Thanks for your time and help! M. Billoo 12:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi @M.Billoo2000:, thanks for getting in touch. My edit was mostly to fix the 'acessdate' error you can see in red, because I'm clearing Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters. That's how I came across the article. When you reverted, you put that error back in, as well as losing the article title. Using |first= and |last= doesn't change how the name displays. I use them because of a job I used to have working with databases, where structured data is important, but it doesn't matter which you choose. It would have been better to change only the part of the article you thought was wrong (the box office figure?), rather than undoing other work at the same time. I hope this makes sense. Thanks for your work on the article, and for messaging me. Mortee (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for your kind response! Hope you watchlist the page for future updates and general fixes. M. Billoo M. Billoo 14:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Deletion request you might be interested in

You participated in the request for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wie Wahrnehmung sich erfindet (2nd nomination) so you might be interested in these requests involving books by the same writer:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wie Wahrnehmung sich erfindet (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vater telefoniert mit den Fliegen
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Este sau nu este Ion (3rd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Im Haarknoten wohnt eine Dame (3rd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heimat ist das, was gesprochen wird (3rd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drückender Tango (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angekommen wie nicht da (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Die blassen Herren mit den Mokkatassen (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eine warme Kartoffel ist ein warmes Bett (2nd nomination)

And also these requests which are also content forks:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hymn o Perle
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gdzie słońce wschodzi i kedy zapada
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trzy zimy
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nieobjęta ziemia
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Últimos días de la víctima (novel)

--Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Thompson Submachine Gun / Terrorist Group

If you read the Wikipedia page on Irish Republican Army you will see that there is a reference at the bottom to 'List of designated terrorist groups'. Would you tell me to cite a reference for ISIS or Al Qaeda as a terrorist group? This article is primarily about the Thompson submachine gun.

As written, the uninitiated reader would think the reference to 'agents of the Irish Republic' was to the current Irish republic, and not the 1920s terrorist group. My change made it clear who the buyers were, nothing more.

You also reverted a second change where I expanded on the gun being unsuited to use in that era, I have the book by Peter Hart cited and he points out that for ambushing policemen, magistrates etc whilst dressed in civilian clothing (the mark of a terrorist group as opposed to a paramilitary group who wear uniforms) revolvers or pistols were better suited.78.19.8.77 (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

My issue isn't with saying the IRA is a terrorist group, it's with naming a specific person as a member of that group. I'm not asserting that it's not true, I'm saying you need a reference for a claim like that. I read the previous version as not making the same assertion. I won't revert a second time, since this isn't my area of expertise, but if you can add some citations, that would be a great improvement. Unless it's already covered by Hart pp.187–188, in which case I apologise.

What's the second change that I reverted? The diff I've linked to here is the only change I've made to that article. Mortee (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

My Companions in the Bleak House

		The Literary Barnstar
		Thank you for all the work you did to improve My Companions in the Bleak House. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Eastmain, that's very kind of you and I appreciate it. › Mortee _talk 19:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Pin Pan Alley

Pin Pan Alley has some more references now (quotes included) that help to establish that Pin Pan Alley was in fact a chain of video arcades. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Eastmain, thank you for that. I'll review them properly tomorrow (it's very late here). The pun name is excellent, so I was a bit sad not to be able to find significant coverage myself. › Mortee _talk 01:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Eastmain: Thanks again. The quotes are particularly helpful because between GDPR and paywalls I don't have access to many of them. Only mentions, but good to have for verification. I've dug through all the Newspaper.com hits ('help wanted' ads mostly) and found exactly one piece, in the Lansing State Journal that's more than a bare mention. I'll add that to the article and update the AfD, but I'm not seeing notability yet. › Mortee _talk 16:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Notification of RFC of stub articles about Norwegian mountain

I would like to inform you that an an RFC has been opened to discuss what should be done with the stubs of Norwegian mountains. I am posting this notice since you had participated in the AFD for the mountains. Therefore, if you or any interested page stalkers / editors would like to chime in, please make your way to the RFC now. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tyw7 thanks for letting me know. I'll watch the RfC for a bit and chip in if I have something to contribute to it. › Mortee _talk 01:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Newspaper sources for steamboat articles

I saw in your work Shady Side (steamboat) that you had adopted a style of careful citations to newspapers of the day for every factual proposition. I agree 100% with that, and I've tried to do the same thing in the articles I've written. What I've found in using newspapers is that they are reliable, in the sense that they are close in time to the subject, but not reliable in that the editors were trying to get a newspaper out and often didn't have a lot of time to check facts. So inconsistent reports turn up, and the historian (or amateur historian in my case) has to pick between what appears to be more likely.Mtsmallwood (talk)

@Mtsmallwood: absolutely! With Shady Side there were sometimes followup stories, which helps, but I'm sure someone could still make the article better. The other article I'm working on is Bob Quinn (Irish filmmaker) where I'm having more trouble for the opposite reason: the accessible coverage is from many years after, and sources rarely agree about in which of two years any given film was made, for example. The Shady Side story was a lot of fun to learn about. Thank you for all the work you've done setting up steamboat articles. › Mortee _talk 11:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Re Humanities Helpesk query "Nelly Sbton or Nelly Sebton"

Hello Mortee. You might be interested in the response at the above query from User:Annemarieditondo379762 that I've just entered below your own. I forgot to ping you, so am putting this here instead. Regards, {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.0.130.143 (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

That's fantastic 94.0.130.143, thank you! I only discovered the reference desks a few days ago but I've been really impressed by the answers others have given there, including particularly yours. › Mortee _talk 18:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Atlantis (commune)

On 14 August 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Atlantis (commune), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Atlantis moved from Ireland to Colombia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Atlantis (commune). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Atlantis (commune)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Durham

Thanks for doing the redirect. Still not convinced that he ever existed, but this was a good result. Rogermx (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Rogermx absolutely, I don't think anyone believes he existed. The only question is of whom he was a pseudonym, given that someone wrote the books. Hopefully the current setup of the articles makes that a bit clearer. Maybe someone will come along in the future and expand on it further. Thanks for bringing it to AfD; I'd never have encountered it otherwise. › Mortee _talk 22:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Gosh

After your comments re: the Polish emigrant supercentenarians AfD, I thought I'd have a look and see what else you're up to. I see article rescue, a good AfD record, very little in the way of declined speedies, DYKs, citing the London Encyclopedia (yay!), people inviting you to request advanced permissions, anti-vandalism, and an ability to stay cool (see response to Quieresjoder above) ... have you ever thought about one of these? (I'm not saying right now but possibly in the not too distant future...) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: that's really flattering and I appreciate you saying it. I'd be delighted to take up a mop at some point, but at the moment I don't think I have any actual need for it – there's plenty to be done down here and I've not been around that long. Maybe, as you say, in the future. It's very reassuring to hear from someone so experienced that I'm doing alright so far. › Mortee _talk 23:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Once Gerda calls you an "awesome Wikipedian", you know you're on the right path ;-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Haha! Very true, but it's nice to know I'm still on it! God bless Gerda and her encouragement of newbies. It's genuinely invaluable. › Mortee _talk 23:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

(blushing:) I tell (most of) them only a year later that it makes them members of the cacal of the outcasts ;) - with the image taken by someone blocked, in the design of someone banned, and yes, both admired ;) - Someone said yesterday that I liked Jack Merridew. I would have but didn't meet him (under that name). He took the lead image for our sad list. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	regarding "User:Mortee/Cheatsheet" It's quite a useful guide for Wikipedia edit. It would have taken a lot of your effort to summarise the information. Can you permit me to copy it to my sub-user page? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Goodtiming8871: you're very welcome to copy my cheatsheet if you'd like to. You might consider linking to it or transcluding it ({{User:Mortee/Cheatsheet}}) so if I correct something your copy gets updated too, but it's totally up to you. I'm glad you found it useful. › Mortee _talk 00:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your permission. That is an even better option for me to get the latest version automatically. I will do it now. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

George Viau

Thanks for letting me know that you started work on an article about him via WP:TH. I am writing a biography of Herman Armour Webster and when I went to Harvard's Fogg Museum to do research on Webster in the Paul J. Sachs archives I found that Viau was a friend of Webster who introduced him to Sachs. Viau and Sachs became, it seems, good friends. This might make your work more important for an English speaking audience. I have photos, often not very good photos, of the relevant correspondence. If you think that it might help you (It is skimpy.) let me know. Unfortunately I need Harvard's permission to release it to you. I had never heard of Viau before this. I live in New York City which has several large art libraries and they have nothing on him. Nicodemus (talk) 00:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nicodemus sorry for my slow reply. The biography sounds like a fun project; I hope it's going well. I don't expect I'll be expanding George Viau much myself, since it wasn't easy to find sources in English. It may not be worth your time to get permission to share the correspondence you found but, if there are details in it that would be good in the article, you're welcome to tell me without sharing the copies and I'll do my best to verify them from secondary sources. › Mortee _talk 19:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Mortee. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Minor user rights can now be accorded on a time limited or probationary period, do check back at WP:PERM in case this concerns your application. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encylopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance. so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term non use, (it is a 'use-it-or-lose-it' access) the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Swarm ♠ 22:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey there. Welcome to new page patrol. I saw that you might not be doing tons of reviewing. I wouldn't worry about that, every bit of quality new page reviewing helps. In fact if every active editor with the permission did 1 day/5 week we'd be in FANTASTIC shape. I've found new page patrol to be very rewarding task in helping preserve the quality of the encyclopedia especially with what hits Google. I hope you do too. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Barkeep49 and Swarm. I'll give it a go and see how addicted I get . If I do end up reviewing in small quantities, I'll at least try to make up for that with thoroughness. › Mortee _talk 22:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, regarding the "use-it-or-lose-it" thing, that's just referring to the stipulation that the right may be revoked without warning if not used in over a year. We're all volunteers of course and no one's going to be breathing down your neck, monitoring your level of activity. As Barkeep said, any little bit of time you're willing to devote to this task would be greatly appreciated! Swarm ♠ 23:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

That's good to know, thanks! › Mortee _talk 23:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Weird symbols

Hi,

   I'm normally editing using a mobile device with, without a real keyboard. The ✓ seems to appear sometimes when changing to the symbols keyboard on Google's Gboard since an update a few months back – I've deleted it from countless places where it has inserted itself, but it seems I missed one. The other one is a complete mystery (I can't work out how to make it appear), and seems to be in the middle of a cut-and-paste url where I wouldn't have been typing. Robminchin (talk) 04:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Robminchin: I wondered if the § might have been a find+replace issue. It's the 'section' symbol, and it replaced "+sect" in both places in the URL. All very odd › Mortee _talk 09:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Hanna Akiva

Hi, if you could have a look in the last paragraph of this article, it would be useful. I am not closed upon my English, because Akiva used pun, and I am native in Hebrew. You may ask everything in the article's talk page. Dgw (talk) 11:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Tom Stoppard Prize) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Tom Stoppard Prize, Mortee!

Wikipedia editor Doomsdayer520 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for your new article on the Tom Stoppard Prize.

To reply, leave a comment on Doomsdayer520's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Please understand that my accidental edit of the original guide page(Mortee/Cheatsheet). It's not my intention. Thank you for advising me. It's an excellent model for my Wikipedia work. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Goodtiming8871: no worries, it's an easy mistake to make. › Mortee _talk 09:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

re: I Love New York (season 1)

Let me direct you to the following report: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Category:Pages_using_citations_with_accessdate_and_no_URL I am working on clearing the 43,000+ errors in the system. Sometimes mistakes happen, and with the feedback of fellow editors such as yourself, things get addressed in a timely fashion. I hope that in the future you attempt to talk to someone in a civil fashion before you accuse them of vandalism. PEACE! Gene Wilson (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Gene Wilson. Sorry to have offended you. I did downgrade from the level 3 warning I saw above because it was a confusing case, but turning "accessdate" into "X____________________Xate" does look disruptive on the face of it. I hope you understand. Was this a find-replace gone wrong or something? Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL looks interesting; I'd like to help out with it now that Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters is briefly clear. If you have particular strategies for dealing with the backlog there that I might be able to help with, do let me know. › Mortee _talk 02:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Gene Wilson, a more basic question - is there a preference I can change somewhere so the "|access-date= requires |url=" error message becomes visible? That way, even if I'm not actively working through the backlog, I'll see the problem I'm on a page that has it, so I can fix it. › Mortee _talk 03:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah! Never mind. I just found and added the .citation-comment snippet to my common.css and they're showing up. I'll work through some of those errors to make up for my hastiness in templating you. If you can offer any advice on fixing these errors efficiently, I'd be grateful for it. › Mortee _talk 03:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

First of all, let me say thanks for offering to help. I have been working on this for 2 months at this point and it is a very tedious endeavor. Beware, there are a lot of land-mines to look out for in clearing these errors. Before I explain a little more about the process I use, have you ever used AWB? Gene Wilson (talk) 03:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I have AWB installed. I've only done 4 so far and already it's looking difficult to (semi-)automate, though. One was a failed attempt to switch to a different template, the current one is an unusual citation that has to give two URLs for one newspaper story because it's split over two pages. › Mortee _talk 03:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Eventhough AWB helps tremendously in going through this process, I HIGHLY recommend doing this manually for awhile before you even think about bringing it over to AWB. Ok, here is how I do it manually. Open this article 1966 Rose Bowl and click the Edit Source tab. Then enter Ctrl-F on your machine and type 'access' (no quotes). You will get 4 occurences of the word. Within the associated {template} you have to see if there is a URL. Not just'|url=', but http://--------. In this case the first of the 4 occurences is of no consequence - it's not within a template. For the second one, there is an http://---- in the template, BUT it's not recognized as such because it is in the wrong parameter field. That's enough for it to kick out into that report Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL. This one is easy to miss. The other 2 occurences correctly have accessdates with URL's. The proper correction for this one would be to change the parameter name for that 2nd occurence from (location= to url=). This is a relatively easy one with only 4 occurences of the word access. Most of the one's I do have 10 to 15 occurences, and you have to look through everyone. Hundreds of articles have 50, 75, 100+ occurences. You have to go through everyone. I didn't even get into some of the quirky situations such as the Allmusic Template which has no http in the code but CAN have an accessdate and does NOT trigger inclusion in that report. Spend a couple of days doing it manually. Just remember this word TEDIOUS. Gene Wilson (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gene Wilson: Yeah, the eleven I did yesterday were a journey. I had to go through the page histories. Seven ended up just needing the |access-date= removed in the end but this needed a change to the citation template, this needed splitting into two references, this I looked up a URL for and this had the URL buried in page history. Adding the code from the category made it MUCH less painful because I can now see in red which references have the problem, but still. Getting through thousands will take time. I haven't seen a predictable enough case yet that I could use AWB to help with, and the regexes would get gnarly fast. I'll keep going manually every so often. Like with Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters a lot of it's grunt work, but there are some interesting puzzles along the way that look like they'll teach me the more secretist arcana of referencing templates. Thanks for the detail of your instructions above. › Mortee _talk 20:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Mortee, as I write this, someone is taking out big chunks of the Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL, category we spoke about earlier. I'm checking it by refresing the page https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:CS1_cite_categories. When I saw it was going out in big blocks, I assumed it was you. (Wrong). You know anything about it? I took out 100 myself this morning. Just curious if you know anything about it, and if it's getting done correctly. Well over 2000 taken out today. Gene Wilson (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Gene Wilson, no idea, sorry. I fixed about 20 today, mostly by looking up URLs to add, but that's all. Perhaps one of the bots has leapt into action? I skimmed a few contributions from CitationBot but didn't spot any. It's high-volume though, and I didn't look at many. › Mortee _talk 18:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

My only other thought is that a change to a template, or a widely-transcluded article, could fix multiple pages at once. If some citation template used to only accept |url=, for example, but started supporting |URL=, then any articles that used it with |URL= would stop showing an error. I don't know of any changes like that, but then there's no reason why I'd hear about them. Sorry I can't be of more help. › Mortee _talk 18:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

No Problem. Over 5000 edits now. Is it possible that these edits can take place without showing up on the recent changes log. I'm not see any seeing any single editor go by that fast to match the changes I see taking place in that category. (It's at 37,179 now) and dropping... Gene Wilson (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Gene Wilson That would happen if it were a change to a template, or if something in CS1 itself were changed so that some of these were no longer defined as errors (I was asking about that possibility in the case of CiteSeer^x here), since the articles themselves wouldn't have been changed. Otherwise, no way I know of. You're right that it's far too fast for a single editor. › Mortee _talk 19:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Module:Citation/CS1 hasn't changed since June, and none of cite web/book/journal has been changed directly this year. {{cite news}} was last changed directly in March. All very puzzling. › Mortee _talk 19:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I think I finally tracked it down. It's called the 'GreenC bot' The Category is down to 26,842 as I write. Gene Wilson (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Gene Wilson how did you find it, and do you think it's making constructive changes? So many of the pages I've looked at have been improvable by adding URLs that I'm not sure how a bot could do the same job well. › Mortee _talk 22:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I had a list of settings saved in AWB that I was working off of and that bot made a change to the list that I saved within the last 90min or so. More specifically the bot's name is 'GreenC bot job #5' Gene Wilson (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I did some spot checks, and it seems to be doing an XLNT job! You and I know how complicated this one is to take on. This bot seems to be only looking at the 'cite news' templates. As an example, look at this article Mary Anderson Snodgrass, it took out 4 accessdates, but left 1 that is part of a 'cite book' template. It effectively removes them, but by leaving the other one, it still remains on the report Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL. I can see this working, by dealing with one template at a time. Ultimately you may have to go through an article several times to clear it, but it can work... How can I find out who is responsible for the bot? Thumbs Up! Gene Wilson (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Gene Wilson, I'm much less impressed. {{Cite news}} is perhaps the case where I'm most often able to add a URL. For example, I can add URLs from the New York Times TimesMachine, but without this category of errors, I don't know where I can help. Same for Mary Anderson Snodgrass - some of those I might have been able to find in Newspapers.com and I'd already asked the author to do so. The error is invisible to readers anyway, so we're just losing information. The book access-date is the least likely to be useful, since ISBNs are permanent, and that's the only one it left in place. Per GreenC bot, the bot is operated by GreenC. The first few bug reports are visible from here down. › Mortee _talk 23:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Gene Wilson if you haven't seen this already, it's relevant to your interests. › Mortee _talk 00:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK for General Frisbie

Moved to Talk:General Frisbie (steamship) § DYK

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:Userbox templates

Hi Jc37, would you consider unprotecting Category:Userbox templates, which you protected from creation in 2008? I'd like to make it a redirect to Category:Userboxes. › Mortee _talk 00:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I went ahead and added the category redirect. - jc37 18:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

More on Biased Sources

Mortee, thanks for the reply about biased sources. Your thoughts are very helpful! It is good to know even that I'm asking reasonable questions, since sometimes people seem to proceed as if everything is clear about these policies. But I think that the policies are sometimes not at all clear, as in the hypothetical case of a controversial topic where all reliable sources speak with one biased voice. Some very smart people on both sides of the political spectrum think this happens more likely than you might have hoped. E.g., I believe that Noam Chomsky claims that this happens routinely, and he is way on the left. In any case, it's good to have it on my radar that this could at least hypothetically be a problem.

Also helpful to have it clear that reasons for charging a source with bias should be something other than your own opinions of the subject itself. Sometimes hard to tell whether one is meeting that criterion, though! Here's the case that came up on the Prager page: I argued that his views were "mainstream conservative" views, and that while I understand why someone might make the claim that "mainstream conservative" views "target gays and Muslims", this is nevertheless a controversial political opinion that indicates bias on the part of the news reporter. I think that this is an argument based in my political opinions, but not in my opinions of the subject matter--namely Dennis Prager. So it seems to me that just stating this argument (which of course might be objected to in various ways) should not have been causing me to receive ban threats and claims that I'm out of step with policy. Does that seem right to you?Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi again Shinealittlelight. In the case where all reliable sources are biased the same way, I don't think Wikipedia could help. By design we only follow what other sources say. If all sources are wrong simultaneously, Wikipedia will be wrong too (or silent). In that case we'd have to give up Wikipedia for a while and retrain as journalists or philosophers. That could be fun.

In some contexts, debating whether a view is mainstream or not might be useful, to decide how much attention to give that view in an article or which view to present first (WP:FRINGE: "summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence"). But, WP:BIASED: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject". To some degree, it doesn't matter if the NPR source is biased as long as it's a clear expression of a perspective widely-held enough to be worth covering. If other reliable sources take a different view (perhaps from their own, opposite bias) then we should cover that too.

With the "mainstream" bit, I think others saw you as arguing "Prager's views are normal, they're not that bad", whereas you meant "here's a reason to think our only source for this section has a slant to it; we should think about how to address that". To my mind, the latter is fair if it's done right, but the really crucial thing is to prevent the conversation devolving into "NPR is wrong!", "No, NPR is right!" and keep it focused on "What do other sources say?", "Have we covered the main views on this?". A safer way might be to look for a new source up front: "This RS says something quite different from our only current source... what shall we do about that? Add? Replace?" A much harder argument to make without trouble would be that one viewpoint is such an outlier that it's a fringe theory not worth mentioning. I would not suggest that, and I was happy to see you willing to switch the conversation to possible additions for the time being. I hadn't heard of Prager before Thursday, though, so what do I know. › Mortee _talk 07:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Good points. I should note that I think you're being very charitable to the other editors on that page in attributing to them a misunderstanding of what I was arguing. I think they understood it very well, and they think that opinion has no role to play in these discussions. They have said this explicitly, and they have now on this basis required the other user to strike tons of comments from the talk page. I think they are just plainly wrong about this: there is no way to assess a source of political news for bias without depending to some degree on controversial political opinions. Civility and consensus and willingness to compromise are the keys here, it seems to me, not avoiding opinions (which is impossible) and certianly not threatening people with bans and cursing at them and calling them names! Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's also possible for other editors to take different positions from me and hold them much more forcefully. I don't want to get into anyone's conduct issues on my talk page. It wouldn't be fair for me to do so without bringing everyone relevant in and this wouldn't be the right place to do something like that (plus, I'd prefer to stay out of it). If any behavior that concerns you continues, there's WP:Dispute resolution#Resolving user conduct disputes. I obviously agree that civility, consensus and willingness to compromise (on matters of opinion) are key in every discussion on Wikipedia. I might add calmness, which I think is distinct and also helpful. I wonder if all policies could be turned into a set of C's: WP:AGF = 'Charity', WP:BOLD = 'Courage', WP:N = Choosy? WP:V = Citations... I might waste some time writing a directory . All the best. › Mortee _talk 14:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: sorry, failed to ping you on my last reply. › Mortee _talk 17:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC) PS: User:Mortee/Policy in the key of C.

Sorry, I did bring up their conduct, but I didn't mean to bring up conduct, but rather their views. They hold the view that opinion is not relevant on WP. I think it's impossible to avoid opinion when it comes to these issues, and consensus and civility are the engines of progress where opinion is unavoidable. In any case, thanks for your influence and your advice and your thoughts. You're a light on Wikipedia, and I wish everyone was like you. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: That's very flattering, thank you. You're always welcome on my talk page. I've enjoyed having some more general questions to think over than my normal editing provides. You might also be interested in this comment and this one, from an experienced admin I respect, if you've not seen them already. › Mortee _talk 01:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I was slow in typing and see you replied there shortly before I posted this. Nevermind. › Mortee _talk 01:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello!

Is it okay if I keep your name and your user page? You have been such a calm voice and accomplished so much--that I didn't think could be done--that I would like very much to stay in contact if you are willing. Next time--if? when?--I would come here and ask if I have a question instead of posting at the Teahouse. Although, I never would have met you if I hadn't! So I am deeply grateful for that--and if you don't want to be bothered anymore, I completely understand. No hard feelings. But if you felt like it was okay to keep in touch that would be totally cool. Anyway, thank you again for everything. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: You're thoroughly welcome to message me whenever and about whatever! I'm glad I could help this time, but even if I can't next time I promise to say "no" nicely. You're doing great work. › Mortee _talk 03:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I'm so glad we met! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Talk about the right word in the right place! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I will add a hearty amen to that! Thanx for thinking of this Grabergs!  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Mortee, we just worked through another one! I took your approach, and it helped me stay calm, size up the issues, and finally just decide to concede the one that was important to the other party. Things remained--mostly--civil the whole time! I may be getting the hang of this.  :-) Jeez, I hope I didn't just jinx it! Thank you again and may a million blessings fall upon you and yours! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey Jenhawk777, great to hear from you! I'm so glad things have been more manageable. Best of luck with the FA review. › Mortee _talk 18:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

thanx for the good thoughts, but nothing much is happening at the FAC right now. I'm afraid it's going to get "timed out" from lack of interest. Gerda is trying, bless her heart, but she is so busy with DYK? that she doesn't have much time for it. Is it copacetic to put out a notice at various places like the Christianity notice board? Or is that a violation of some obscure unspoken WP rule? :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Jenhawk777 I've no idea, I'm afraid. I've never been involved with a GA review, much less an FA. It sound perfectly reasonable to me. You're only asking if someone could help review it, after all. That seems like the kind of thing WikiProjects are there to support. (Bless Gerda, as always; I appreciate her greatly) › Mortee _talk 18:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanx, I might give it a try then. Gerda has got to be one of the greatest people here--along with you of course! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Note to self that this is from here and here › Mortee _talk 10:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Question from Yororipas

Hi, is this how to contact you? Thanks for commenting on my problem of seeming to have two editing names. Maybe I created one many years ago and forgot,as I never got into ending properly until now. I'm not sure. My question then is, how do I delete one editor name to avoid confusion? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yororipas (talk • contribs) 04:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yororipas, nearly. It's better to start a new section at the bottom of the page (you can use the + button next to "Edit source" to do that). I've moved your question here. I've also removed an email address from it, because it's a bad idea to make your email visible. The right way to sign messages is with ~~~~. You may want to get that removed from the page history too through WP:Oversight. I can help you request that if you like. Thanks for explaining; I think understand now. There have been some more replies at the Teahouse and it looks like you're right. You had an older account, and you used both yesterday; perhaps your browser remembered the old login details so you accidentally logged into the wrong one. It's important that you only have one active account, so you should:

1. choose which account you want to keep
2. log into the other account
3. change the user page and user talk page into redirects to the new ones. The syntax for that is something like #REDIRECT [[User:Yororipas]]
4. log out
5. log into the account you're keeping
6. only use that account in future

I hope you find this useful. You can ask again at Teahouse or here if any of it's not clear. All the best, › Mortee _talk 15:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

change account name

Hello. First, thank you for answering my question at the teahouse. Also for your suggestion to change my account name as it may be confusing, I searched but can't find where to make it? AGF (talk) 23:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Agf2, you're very welcome, feel free to ask me any other questions that come up. Thank you for considering changing your username. If you want to do that, there are instructions here and requests can be made here. Since you're quite new, an alternative would be to just make a new account. I hope this helps, › Mortee _talk 23:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Food and drink

Hello, Mortee. You are invited to join WikiProject Food and drink, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of food, drink and cuisine topics. Please check out the project, and if interested feel free to join by adding your name to the member list. You can also sign up to receive project newsletters and notifications at the notifications list, even if you choose not to join. North America1000 22:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mortee. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Non-science.
Message added 04:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done › Mortee _talk 10:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Ethics in the Bible

Four violas has asked a question here that if you are interested in answering--according to what you think--without it getting you overly involved, could help. [[6]] Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

yeesh is right

About [7]. I met that editor myself once at Talk:Stanley_Kubrick#Press-box_BRD. Remarkable how they got on my nerves with on short comment, something of a skill. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

So somebody tell me—what is up with infoboxes??? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Jenhawk777 some editors are strongly opposed to the inclusion of infoboxes, at least in some circumstances. Others think they're generally useful. It flared up a few times over the years, as I understand it, and during the time I've been here it turned into one amazing fight, driven particularly (as I saw it) by the advocacy of one editor. You can see the resulting ARBCOM case here and sample the tenor of the conversation here or various of these. As with most things (I've not yet !voted at WP:RFA, I've only involved myself twice at WP:ANI, and I've never been involved at WP:ARBCOM, but I read all of them in great depth) I kept well clear of it, but it was called the infobox wars for good reason. › Mortee _talk 16:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Aaarrgghh!! That looks way too familiar! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK for General Frisbie (steamship)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

leaving

It seems like everyone I like and admire is talking about leaving Wikipedia. :-( I am so so so very sorry to hear you are even thinking of it. I will miss you and wish you would stay. You make a positive difference here. Please don't lose touch! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Jenhawk777 I'm sure I'll be back. I have a lot going on in personal life and most of my interactions recently on Wikipedia have been gently dispiriting (nothing hostile, just nothing I've enjoyed and, for me, Wikipedia is a hobby, not a vocation). After a while to let those fall behind and find something I want to work on again, I'll be happy to join back in, hopefully with you and others. I'm not rage-quitting, just focusing on real life for a short while. All my best, › Mortee _talk 22:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I see that only now, and hope my edit summary wasn't too dispiriting. Please stay in touch, that's all, take as much time for better things as you need. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Gerda, I've been on a break for a week already. Your edit summary wasn't the reason for it. I just put the notice up today. I wish you well too. › Mortee _talk 22:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Relief. I didn't think "reason", but felt that adding to lower spirits than could be was bad enough, sorry. Did you read about a place for silence today (pictured on the Main page)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Gerda I didn't, but congratulations on another DYK. It sounds like an interesting place. › Mortee _talk 22:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I can reach it by bike, and went that way with friends. Today, I had two DYK, after many days without, almost too much of a good thing. I am behind replying to concerns in several nominations, and missing how many qpq, only saying "to come" (4? 5? 6?), - I guess you'll understand a bit of the irony above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't, but I'm sure I'll figure it out. Two DYKs from the same person in one day might not be the best use of space, but if no-one's losing out then more power to you. › Mortee _talk 23:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I understand personal life issues, and I understand dispiriting. Your encouragement has helped me. I wish there was some way to communicate how much of a difference your caring presence makes and has made, but if you really believe this is what's best for you, then I want it too. Can I ask you to email me occasionally to keep in touch? At least--as long as I am not one of those you need some time away from--jeez--I hope that's not true! I will grovel with apologizes if that's the case! Otherwise, I accept you know what's best for you but hope keeping in touch is part of that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jenhawk777, I don't need time away from you, don't worry. I'm sorry not to have gathered the energy to respond to the question you asked me above a while back now. My email's open, as always, and I'm happy to stay in touch. Best, › Mortee _talk 16:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

It is perfectly okay, and your encouragement helped me persevere and work it out myself. I think we are making some progress. It's slow--but it's better than constant setbacks! I am hanging in there! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mortee, I was really sad to read it. You were so helpful, and your life are important either. I liked your way of expression. You remind me The NeverEnding Story (film). The actress was Israeli. Dgw (talk) 05:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec18a}}~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.

ϢereSpielChequers 14:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)