User talk:Epeefleche

This user is one of the 200 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

This user is a participant in
WikiProject Albums.

This user is a member of WikiProject Lacrosse.

This user helped promote Sam Fuld to good article status.

Daniel Lavoie "Awards" section

Hello User:Epeefleche. Could you please explain why you removed the "Awards" section from article as unreferenced Daniel Lavoie when the awards are referenced in the text of the article? Thank you in advance for your response.Paroles2000 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't notice that each of the awards had an appropriate inline reference in the text of the article. But if they did -- why would be redundant, listing all two dozen or so awards twice? As mentioned, this article -- while better now -- has been rife with apparent COI editing and puffery; it is getting much much better, but we still have to keep an eye on inappropriate efforts to pump it up. Listing two dozen awards - if RS supported - twice in the same article would fall into that category. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Phishing Alert

Those who happen by this page may wish to be on the alert for efforts to hack into their private email accounts.

As happened to one wikipedia editor, as described in short here.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

FL?

I noticed your name and Sportswoman of the Year Award pop up on my watchlist. I think this could be an FL without a tremendous amount of work, though the scope needs to expand and include the 1980-1992 professional and amateur award winners. Interested in working together to get it there? Courcelles 10:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing! Sounds like a fine idea. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Great, I'll try to get the other tables in by the weekend. Courcelles 16:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me know if I owe you anything on this.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Interaction ban on Wjemather

I have closed the thread and imposed an interaction ban on Wjemather. I doubt the advice is needed but: avoid interacting with him, even though the sanction is technically not two way. FWIW I feel there was no consensus to block him at this time, esp. as it is something of a "one-off" since the last block he had (and I am inclined to mark it down as a last chance). Hopefully by not interacting that simply solves the problem. Cheers. :) --Errant ^(chat!) 00:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Place of birth in lead

Epeefleche, wanted to get back to you on message about place of birth in the lead of articles. Most of the high-quality biography articles, ones rated Good Article or Featured class, seem to omit place of birth/death from the parenthetical opening to the lead. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) appears to support that practice as well. I agree with the omission because it makes the leads cleaner looking. Place of birth/death can be listed in the infobox and should be integrated where appropriate into the body of the article or farther down in the lead if important enough. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Philip Baird Shearer

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer. -- Parrot of Doom 11:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Brunette Models|concern=A7

I don't agree that Brunette Models is proposed that this article has been deleted. This team is very significant in Poland. Is played in Europe, the U.S. and worldwide. It is one of the precursors of ambient-style music in Poland. Sorry, does the proposal to remove is because Brunette Models has a Jewish origin and he has problems with the organization of the Nazi Redwatch? Maybe the same person suggests the deletion of Wikipedia, and that other one portal?

• Brunette Models on REDWATCH website

Thanks and regards! Γραφή (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC).

No, I'm not seeking to delete the article because of an anti-Semitic leaning on my part, driving me to delete the article because the band has a Jewish origin. And no, I am not seeking to delete the article because of any personal bias on my part in favor of Nazi organizations.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Aerolit

As I see you ventured boldly into a whole hornet's nest of underdeveloped band artciles. After some thought I agree with your work: if someone cares about them, they must take care. Otherwise wikipedia may quickly turn into a source of misinformation, since it is often blindly copied in multitudes, especiallty for little known topics. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, your take is correct. I'm a fan of bands, and fully supportive of us having good articles. And, as you can tell, my primary focus on wp is content creation. Having articles on bands that do not meet our standards waters down the helpfulness of the project, IMHO. But I would always prefer to have support for notability discovered, and an article kept. And this area is one that does appear to attract more non-notable articles than many other areas. Your note is especially appreciated, of course, as we have different views as to one particular band article. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Pancake images

You're welcome. And thanks for informing me of that; I wasn't aware that MoS had a guideline for that. What's ironic is that I myself don't generally care for sandwiching images like that, but in trying to make the images work in that article, I thought they ended up looking all right. Can you link me to the relevant MoS page? I'll look it over and remove some of the images if need be. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your discretion and even-handedness. I particularly appreciate the MoS link, largely because I have now discovered the Picture Tutorial, which shows me how to co-align images, which I've never gotten around to learning how to do. Thanks! Nightscream (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Shopping centers

I've declined your A7 speedy deletion requests of La Molina Plaza, Istana Plaza Bandung, and Hyatt Plaza. Shopping centers are not eligible for the A7 speedy deletion criterion, as it is specifically limited to companies/organizations, among other specific categories. You are free to take them to PROD/AfD if you still believe that they should be deleted.--Slon02 (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

To my knowledge, shopping centers are companies, partnerships, or some other form of organization (e.g., LLC or LLP). The shopping center tenants pay rent to the landlord organization.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me for butting in; I saw this after reading the reply to my message above. My guess is that whether or not a mall is a company would depend. Where I used to live in the US, most malls were owned by a larger management company, like Westfield Group. This would mean that each mall is actually the branch of a company (like a single location of a corporate owned store, like Walmart). Oddly enough, it almost seems like that means it's not eligible for A7, because the criteria specifies "organization", not "organization or its sub-divisions". That is quite a counter-intuitive idea--it would mean that an article on something like Tax Working Group of the Second Accounting Division of the U.S. Division of Multinational X would technically not qualify under A7. Unless you already know of precedent, perhaps it would be helpful to seek clarification from WT:CSD, and maybe even a re-write of the policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not uncommon for companies to have subsidiary companies, to firewall risk. A subsidiary would be an organization. In any event, either way, it is an organization. The organization is the entity that signs the contracts -- such as lease agreements to the shops. Hence this sentence in Yahoo Finance describing the company: "Westfield Group, through its subsidiaries, operates as a retail property group in Australia, the United States, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom." --Epeefleche (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

List of hurdlers

You are a very active wikipedian, but please, butt out of a subject you do not know. This list IS poorly maintained, but there are legitimate entries here that need to be researched and have articles written, not arbitrarily deleted based on policy and your lack of knowledge. I have restored two such entries, one that had an article, the other that legitimately should have an article under WP:Athlete. Leaving a name here will possibly encourage an editor (maybe me but I've got my plate full too) to write an article about this subject. The point being, do further research before you delete content. Trackinfo (talk) 07:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:LISTPEOPLE, WP:V, WP:BURDEN, and WP:BLP. For a name of a person to be in a list of people, it should have a blue-link or a ref. The burden is on the editor seeking to restore the blp's name to a list -- and the name should not have been added to the list in the first place (I see some of these redlinks hark back to 2005), in accord with wp:LISTPEOPLE, if it lacks both a wp article and appropriate refs.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

```Buster Seven Talk 14:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your commitment to WP:V! bobrayner (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Bashar al-Shatti

(X! · talk)  · @181  ·  00:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Maybe this kitty :D

ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Thanks

This user helped promote Jason Kipnis to good article status.

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Jason Kipnis, which has recently become a GA. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Thanks for your guidance. Way2veers (talk) 03:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Just wanted to say that this made me smile. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 07:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken

Theatre

Hi. Please don't change "Theatre District" to "Theater District". The vast majority of legit theatres in Manhattan and New York City use the older spelling. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• See consensus here (a page that you just edited, in fact), WP:UCN, and WP:ENGVAR.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You're just floundering around on a subject you don't know shit about

You edited Morosco Theatre, and its just an article to you, but it happens to be the first Broadway theatre I did a show at. Go edit something you understand. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about?

I made these edits to the article. Where is the floundering you accuse me of? What in that edit do you feel suggests a paucity of knowledge, resulting in a deficient edit? Rather than an improvement?

And what is your comment about, to the effect that I "don't know shit" about the subject? And that "its just an article to [me]." What in my dearth of knowledge impeded the accuracy of my edit? What is wrong with the article just being an article to me? Isn't that normal?

And what's the point of "it happens to be the first Broadway theatre I did a show at"? Are you suggesting you own the article? And others, who do not have a personal involvement with the subject of the article should, as you put it "go edit" articles other than ones as to which you have an attachment?--Epeefleche (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

"I'm curious" you say, that the New York Times called it the Mark Hellinger Theater - well, they fucked it up, because before it was sold to be church it was the Mark Hellinger Theatre. Face it, you really don't know anything about this subject, and you're just hoping against hope that some evidence will come to light to support your position. Well, I'm here to tell you that I've spent the lasyt 30 years of my life working in the theatre in New York City (Broadway, Off-Broadway and Off-Off-Broadway) and it's irrelevant if the spell-checker flags "theatre" as being a misspelling, that's what it's called here. If you had a semblence of a clue, you'd know that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

You really are clueless, aren't you? Pity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

You haven't responded to my above questions.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, you are a little pissant.....

...aren't you? [1] Fuck you, asshole. Your Asperger's is not a "get out of jail free" card. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• BMK -- This post by you follows (among other similar posts) your above post here. I understand that you probably didn't mean to cause me pain, but I feel that this and your prior posts were hurtful and uncivil. I've tolerated them in the past. But you have simply continued, with this most recent post. Please strike out your uncivil comments. Thank you.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

MOS is a *guideline*

and not policy, and need not be followed robotically. WP:IAR allows us leeway to improve things if we can. Do not edit war over style formatting, it's not exempt from 3RR. Just don't go there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

You are the one edit-warring. You keep reverting from the first format chosen in the article. Which was completely appropriate. And what MOS calls for. There is zero reason to ignore MOS. And to change it from the first format used in the article, to boot. IAR is not license to ignore MOS without any good reason, just because you like it another way, and edit-war to change the format from the original one. For what appears to be no logical reason -- you are just adding needless words, that add nothing, and are non-MOS.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Cleanup

Hello, Epeefleche. You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for signing on with the project, and feel free to post articles for clean-up there! Northamerica1000<sup>(talk)</sup> 22:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Outcome of the discussion at user request for comments

Hello, Epeefleche. The RFC/USER discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Epeefleche has been closed.

The outcome was: There is a clear consensus here on two main points: a) that Epeefleche is broadly correct to remove unsourced content; b) that Danjel has often acted wrongly in restoring unsourced content.
There was also a clear consensus that Danjel had previously been made aware of the community's support for the core policy of WP:V, and had previously been advised at ANI to desist from reinstating unsourced material.
The result was that Danjel's opening of this RFC amounted to shooting themself in the foot. The consensus is that Epeefleche has acted correctly in support of WP:ONUS, and the problem here is with Danjel's conduct; there was strong support for describing this conduct as WP:HOUNDING.

-- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Well earned:

		Silk Purse Award
		I am both pleased and honored to present you with the Silk Purse Award in appreciation for your superb improvements to the Ido Pariente article... taking a stub that did not properly inform a reader and building it into something that far better serves both the project and its readers,[2] essentially changing what was seen as a sow's ear into a terrific silk purse. As your improvements were more than a 15x expension, I encourage you to now nominate this with DYK for mainpage. Well done! Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter April 2013

ICHTHUS

April 2013

Membership report
The parent Christianity WikiProject currently has 357 active members. We would like to welcome our newest members, Thomas Cranmer, Mr.Oglesby, and Sneha Priscilla. Thank you all for your interest in this effort. We would be able to achieve nothing here without the input of all of you. If any members, new or not, wish any assistance, they should feel free to leave a message at the Christianity noticeboard or with me or other individual editors to request it.

By John Carter

Featured content and GA report
Since the last report;

Grade I listed churches in Cumbria was promoted to Featured List status, thanks to Peter I. Vardy, and the image above of the Church of Saint Ildefonso was promoted to featured picture status.

Also these past months, the DYKs on the main page included St Mary's Church, Cleobury Mortimer by Peter I. Vardy; Marion Irvine by Giants2008; Margaret McKenna by Guerillero; Archdiocesan Cathedral of the Holy Trinity by Epeefleche; St Edith's Church, Eaton-under-Heywood by Peter I. Vardy; Vester Egesborg Church by Ipigott, Rosiestep, Nvvchar, and Dr. Blofeld; Undløse Church by Ipigott, Rosiestep, Nvvchar, and Dr. Blofeld; St Martin's Church, Næstved by Ipigott, Rosiestep, Nvvchar, and Dr. Blofeld; St. Peter, Syburg by Gerda Arendt and Dr. Blofeld; Østre Porsgrunn Church by Strachkvas; Church of Our Saviour (Mechanicsburg, Ohio) by Nyttend; Dami Mission by Freikorp; Mechanicsburg Baptist Church by Nyttend; Acheiropoietos Monastery, by Proudbolsahye; T. Lawrason Riggs, by Gareth E Kegg; McColley's Chapel, by Mangoe; Oświęcim Chapel, by BurgererSF; Second Baptist Church (Mechanicsburg, Ohio), by Nyttend; Church of the Holy Ghost, Tallinn, by Yakikaki; Old Stone Congregational Church, by Orladyl Heath Chapel, by Peter I. Vardy; St. Joseph's Church, Beijing, by Bloom6132; Church of St Bartholomew, Yeovilton, by Rodw; and St. Michael's Catholic Church (Mechanicsburg, Ohio) also by Nyttend. Our profoundest thanks and congratulations to all those involved!

Help requests
Please let us know if there are any particular areas, either individual articles or topics, which you believe would benefit from outside help from a variety of other editors. We will try to include such requests in future issues.

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here
EdwardsBot (talk) 12:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For finding so many excellent sources on Ralph Gracie, thus saving him from certain deletion. Luchuslu (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

I am sorry,guess i need a bit more time... thank you for your criticism,i will take it positively Uncletomwood (talk) 08:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Frgewhqwth and unsourced material

I thought you might like to know that I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Frgewhqwth and unsourced material—hate to poke my nose in, but I thought the situation merited it. —Ignatzmice<sup>talk</sup><sub>contribs</sub> 23:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Just so you know, in reference to your question to Fregehqwth, I extended his block to editing his own talk page, after I saw that he was abusing that privilege. Nightscream (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For your work on Boston Marathon bombings. Bearian (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Hannock

Holy shit. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Yup.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For keeping on on recent edits to Daniel Squadron. Thanks! :)--108.30.93.184 (talk) 07:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Precious

notable lists

Thank you, tirelessly working editor, for quality articles such as Miriam Roth, for reserving lists of people to the notable, for coming to the rescue of articles, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 665th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Michael Russell (tennis)

Nice work expanding this! Keep up the good work. Ruby 2010/2013 19:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your support on reflist

Thanks for the support that you have extended on the Template talk:Reflist#Basis 30em standard for multiple column discussion. I thought that it is almost obvious that one would like to split references into two columns (at least). But other than you, nobody else even acknowledged my findings or justified it. Criticism is always welcome but definitely it should be of substance rather than reflecting a sense of rigiditiy. I primarily edit Wikipedia when a gap becomes apparent to me. Since you are a senior editor, I would be glad if you guide me when the situation demands. Diptanshu<sup>Talk</sup> 06:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

50 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal

		The 50 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		Please accept this belated barnstar. Thanks for your tireless contributions to the DYK project and Wikipedia in general! -Zanhe (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

Hi Epeefleche,

Sorry to bother you -- I undertand you are an expert on NPOV issues.

I was told (I think?) that I have been engaging in a slow edit war since Januay 29, 2014 with two other editors who have reverted material I added to an article. I believe the material I added is in accordance with Wikipedia principles and I do not understand why my edit is being reverted.

Can you offer any advice on the talk page in question. Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Indiggo

Dear Epeefleche,

Why did you undo all of my work of hours? Indiggo's wikipedia has to be neutral and fair to their accomplishments. All my sources were relevant and from reputable sites. What you are trying to do is diminish and minimize their work. Please, revert my changes.

Thank you, Dany4444 (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You are a single-purpose editor, who upon being created immediately started editing -- in similar fashion -- an article at AfD where there has been edit warring in the past, and ducking sock behavior. You can't add uncited material, as you did. You can't add material using wikis as a source, which you did. You can't add other non-RSs, as you did. You can't add material that is not supported by RSs, which you did. I already left you information on your talkpage as to your errors and how to edit correctly. Also -- have you ever edited before, under a different name or IP address?Epeefleche (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. I will delete all the wiki references. Thank you for pointing that out. I edited trying to give a most accurate image of the Indiggo duo.

Many thanks. Dany4444 (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you ever edited Wikipedia before, under a different name or IP address? --Epeefleche (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I have never edited Wikipedia before. I am trying to do constructive editing, verified, and with significant and just facts. There were many errors. I'm just trying to help and present a neutral point of view that highlights the American facts.

I started editing because I was surprised by the differences from wikipedia and other sources.

Many thanks. Dany4444 (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry your editing led to an indef block. Epeefleche (talk) 05:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Taj Anwar

If you have time, could you please help edit the Taj_Anwar page? 24.97.201.230 (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Ntrepid

Hello Epeefleche, A while ago you did some good work on this article; I wonder if you could have a look some time at the very recent additions, which don't seem very clear to me. Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 06:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Cal South

Hi, you recently deleted my Cal South article because there weren't any primary sources. I don't know how to undelete an article. Could you please do it for me so I can add sources? If they don't fall under Wikipedia guidelines, then you can feel free to delete the article. Thanks.--Bowser2500 (talk) 07:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi -- I would suggest you check with the sysop who deleted that article, Tawker, and ask him/her for assistance. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks :)--Bowser2500 (talk) 07:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Please take a look at the difference in edits before you click undo. I have added credible references that you're deleting on the Cal South page.--Bowser2500 (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page -- fresh off your recent three blocks, and operating on final warning, you continue to violate wp:v. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you did not heed your warnings, and are now blocked for the fourth time in the past two months. Epeefleche (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Lucas.tej

Hi Epeefleche, I stumbled upon an article created by this editor, only to find many non-notable/borderlines. Due to the number, I wondered if you'd like to comment, and if so would you consider commenting on the creator's talk page? Widefox; talk 11:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

sorry about reverting the edits on university of education didn't look closely enough and thought it was vandalism, my apologies.
Gamemaster eleven (talk) 05:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Welcome to wikipedia. Enjoy your time here. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Nathaniel Albert Eaton

He's new, he admits a COI, he actually sounds like a pretty reasonable guy, he just doesn't know our policies. Policies aren't very intuitive to someone trying to add info that they know to be true but don't have sources. Since you are editing the same articles, could you help him along for a few days rather than template? You aren't incorrect in your assessments of what should be sourced and such, you and I agree, but I think if you help him along a bit, it would be tremendously helpful. He is a writer for a magazine, so he obviously has some skill and would be very helpful here, he just doesn't know how the place works. If you could, I would consider it a personal favor. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Understood and agreed as to most. He does for some reason seem to be re-adding material he should not be re-adding, even after it is explained to him (by both of us) what the rules are. Hopefully he will take a moment to read them. I believe between us we have left him 8 messages, and many of them point to the relevant rules. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

He writes for a living, he might think "I know what the hell I'm doing and I know this is true", which gets in the way of communications sometimes. Our policies are there for a damn good reason, but it isn't obvious to newcomers who have no idea how much vandalism and BS edits you and I have to deal with. But he does have some skill, so worth the time to help him get up to speed. We can always use someone who knows how to write properly......once they understand the policies. Thanks, btw, the extra time is much better than a template. Ping me if you need. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree that our rules aren't intuitive. And that a typical person -- without having read our rules -- would not think that they can't write "what they know." Professional writers, generally, are familiar with the notion of sources. He wrote (many years ago(?)) for High Times; it's not clear to me that he is now a writer. Generally, though, I find professional writers are also capable readers. And the 8 messages we've left him have material that, were he to read the material, would outline the way forward for him. I agree that were he to finally read it, he could be a helpful editor. And I'm happy to see ... even if it takes more communications, with much the same content ... if some more pointing to and explaining our rules can help. There is also, as you point out, the COI issue, which I hope he takes to heart. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

"American University of Asia"

Not an A1 either. I suggest we take it to AfD, so that anyone Google-ing up "Wikipedia American University of Asia" can find out we have deleted it as the complete scam it obviously is. Your thoughts? --Shirt58 (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 02:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Caos Emergente

Hello Epeefleche. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Caos Emergente, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article survived a speedy deletion request in the past. Try WP:PROD or WP:AfD instead. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz <sup>Talk</sup>/<sub>Stalk</sub> 02:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Malik. But the speedy you refer to, if I am reading the history correctly, was removed by the article creator. Which is a no-no. If I'm correct, the incorrect removal of the speedy shouldn't I would think obviate a speedy here. Thoughts? Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I removed the speedy tag because at the time the A7 criterion did not apply to events, so the request was groundless (I asked the user to take it to AfD, which he did not do). Frankly I do not care much about those old articles of mine, no one updated them in seven years so they are pretty useless. I will not oppose any deletion requests, speedy or otherwise. If you find any more bad festival articles like those, please don't spend the time to notify me, just go on and delete them. Mushroom (Talk) 09:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Mushroom. @Malik -- under the circumstances, can we restore (and act upon) the speedy? @Mushroom -- alas the notification is automatic, when I prod or speedy an article. Feel free to ignore or delete it. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Epeefleche. I've deleted it. All the best, — Malik Shabazz <sup>Talk</sup>/<sub>Stalk</sub> 19:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

KROK International Animated Films Festival

Frankly, a simple Google search would have been enough to verify the importance of this festival, and the fact that many of the top directors in the field visit it. I feel that your speedy deletion nomination was negligent. Esn (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The visitors do not connote notability. When creating articles, please consider using RS refs, and reflecting notability. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Epeefleche. I've opened a discussion about the deletion of these types of articles at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Speedy deletion of articles about music and film festivals. Paul Erik <sup>(talk)(contribs)</sup> 19:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

85th Street (Manhattan)

I believe that the 85th Street (Manhattan) article should be redirected to List of numbered streets in Manhattan#85th Street. Not that it's notable, but it's extremely short and duplicates the entirety of that section. I will open a discussion at WT:NYC shortly so that other people may weigh in on this. Epicgenius (talk) 11:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. We have different views. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I would urge you to reconsider the AfD you started here, on the basis of the comments at that AfD. Tx. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for -- after nominating it for AfD -- reconsidering, and for reviewing it at DYK. Impressive. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (Musical Mutual Protective Union) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Musical Mutual Protective Union, Epeefleche!

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

Great article. Thanks!

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

Learn more about page curation.

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your work on 85th Street (Manhattan). Wow. Bearian (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Heads up

Hi there. I'm not sure if you're aware of this discussion on school notability. Best,  Philg88 <sup>♦talk</sup> 10:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for 85th Street (Manhattan)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

John's Korner Bar

Couldn't you send this to AfD instead of CSD - then I can vote "delete" ;-) Ritchie333 <sup>(talk) (cont)</sup> 19:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Apologies for sparing you the pleasure ... Epeefleche (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Intermediate School 318

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:1RR

Actually, you just broke WP:1RR on Tuqu'‎, Halhul and Dura, Hebron.

Please help me ...and self-revert. (I´ll absolutely hate to go through all the work of reporting you ....;P) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Did I? Apologies if I did ... and I will revert if appropriate. But ... I was confused -- I thought if they were different articles, and you seem to be an editor who focuses primarily on that area and knows what you are doing, and certainly would not be reverting me and thereby violating 1RR yourself, that they must be outside 1RR (by being in different articles?).

Or was is that you violated 1RR? On three articles, by reverting my addition of a map to the three articles. In which case ... if I revert, and you then revert (to avoid 1RR), then the articles would be back to precisely where they are now?

Plus -- on the Dura article, though you reverted me by reverting my addition of the map, as you reverted my additions of the map to the other two articles, all I did (so far) was fix the separate point you raised, in a manner that I would think would satisfy your voiced concern, as to the title. (Perhaps you're confused on that, as I see you wrote, which is not the case (at this point): "you adding the map twice...in 3 articles".)

Help me here ... tx. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You inserted the same stuff twice. In 3 articles. Which I reverted, and will certainly not take out again before 24 hours. You have broken the 1RR rule 3 times!! Now, I can discuss wether the map should be in the article or not, but NOT before you have reverted. Until then I will be occupied with drafting 1RR my report ...on you. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Help me understand. I will self-revert if appropriate.

What did I insert twice into the Dura article? Not the map. And the title was only deleted because it was over-inclusive, as you pointed out, but I fixed that. Are you asserting that because I fixed your indicated problem with its prior form, it is a violation? That would not make sense -- it totally addresses the issue you raised.

As to the map -- you deleted it three times. On three different articles. Is that a 1RR violation? Or not -- because 1RR only applies to you reverting more than once in the same article?

As to my adding the map twice to any one article, that's not two reverts. The first addition isn't a revert. "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor." When I added a map, I didn't undo the actions of another editor.

Let me know your thinking.

Thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes: you adding the map twice...in 3 articles: that *is* a violation. If, you like me, only edited each of these 3 articles once during these last 24 hours: then you cannot break the 1RR. Adding, or subtracting the same stuff both counts as reverting. Have you not seen Wikipedia:REVERT? If not, it is about time. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

As you probably know (because when I do edit in that area I often see are active in it), I only edit in this area on occasion; 1 RR doesn't impact the vast majority of the articles I edit. So maybe I need a refresher. As I understand it, you are saying that we only worry about 1RR within any one article. OK ... if that's so, then you certainly haven't violated it here, by deleting the same map from three different articles (once each). In 24 hours. But as I understand it, you are saying that my first addition of the map in any one article counts as a map (we are agreed of course that my second addition of the map, reverting your deletion of it, is a revert). Thing is, I'm reading the rules, and see them as saying just the opposite.

"A revert means undoing the actions of another editor." But when I add an image, I'm not undoing the action of another. Is there an interpretation that says otherwise? If that were the case, and not only reverts, but rather any edit to an article, were counted, it would be a different rule. Perhaps I'm confused -- if you can point me to something that says the first edit is a revert, where I add an image that was never in the article, I could understand that interpretation. But from what I can see, that's not at all a revert, because I am not undoing the action of another when I add an image.

Plus -- on Dura, don't you agree that I didn't add an image? If so, you can't seriously be upset that I addressed the title issue in a manner that addresses your voiced concern? Maybe you might take another look, and let me konw. Epeefleche (talk) 00:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, you did not re-add the image in Dura (my bad), (though I´m not happy with the divisions as they are now: Biblical period, then straight to Tenth century....as if there wasn´t anything in between?) ( BUT: you haven´t broken the 1RR here, AFAIK, you have only broken the 1RR on the two other articles) You are are reading "revert" far, far, too narrowly, look at some of the latest 1RR cases! (say, this) Please understand: Adding material, or removing, both counts towards 1RR. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing up that Dura was a mis-understanding.

So, as I understand it, the issue is now whether when one adds an image for the very first time ... whether that is a revert. Which, if it were, would mean that -- after a subsequent deletion of the image (by you), a revert of your deletion by me would be a "2nd" revert.

My understanding is that the first act -- the addition of the image, for the first time, into the article, is not a revert. Admittedly, I've not devoted as high a percentage of my time on wp to editing in the 1RR area as it appears you have. But reading the policy, I don't see it saying what you assert.

And the example you gave is different -- it involves two clear changes to other editors' edits by undoing their edits. The addition of the image in the first place, in contrast, was not an undo of an edit.

But if I'm told that you are right and I am wrong, I will happily self-revert on those 2 articles. Let's see what input we get on the policy talk page here. One sysop has opined already; and kudos to him, btw ... he and I have had some sharp disagreements in the past, but he did not let that impact his honest view. Epeefleche (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

School AFDs

Hi Epeefleche,
Seeing as each and every School AFD has been closed as Redirect, Have you ever thought about just redirecting them yourself?,
I don't have any issues with you nominating them its just I thought it may be quicker redirecting yourself that's all :)
Regards, –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Davey. I have. My problem is two-fold. One, some editors -- even at the recent AfDs -- disagree. Second, from time to time the !vote ends up in the school being kept. Given that, I'm not so Bold as to redirect on my own -- without any other editors looking at the redirect proposal (as happens at speedy and at PROD). I understand that others are so Bold -- and I don't disagree with them having a different view. But I can see, under the circumstances -- and especially since the school AfDs are never closed as a SNOW as best I can recall -- a Keep !voter arguing that such a redirect is a stealth move, and therefore not as appropriate as a speedy or PROD (which go nowhere) or AfD. All that said, if another editor wishes to redirect, or to close AfDs as Snows, that's not something I have an issue with. Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to be bold if you don't want to. I have no problem with your AfD nominations. Cullen<sup>328</sup> Let's discuss it 22:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

To be honest I suppose not being bold on something like these are good as no doubt you'd get one tool who would simply revert!,

Anyway was just a suggestion :)

Happy Editing,

Regards, –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Frankly -- I wish there were a more streamlined way. For example, making Speedy or Prod available ... the closing sysop can always then redirect. That would allow for at least one other editor seeing the change. Another improvement would be if people were to SNOW close AfDs in the schools area, that are clear redirects. Either or both of those would be an improvement. Or, a bolder editor could redirect primary schools and elementary schools that don't appear to warrant an article. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

A bolder editor might (I certainly do, but only when I come across them by chance), but they probably have better things to do than scour the cats for nn but albeit inoffensive school articles lurking in the depths of the encyclopedia. Such articles are generally created by SPA who are hardly likely to return to WP and complain. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Bare url source and no page number on book source- added to a good article

Hi Epeefleche. I think you added this bare URL source to a Good article (aphthous stomatitis): [3]. Do you feel like filling it out properly, it being a GA and all...

Also this book I cannot see any preview of online:

[4]

Did you see any preview? It looks like the source was found with a google book search of "rembrandt" toothpaste "canker sores"

If you know the page number, that would also be v helpful since the article is moving to FA soon. Many thanks, 188.29.81.212 (talk) 23:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi -- are you editing under more than one identity? Thanks. I will try to look for the info you asked about in the next few days. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 23:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

As a dynamic IP these days. Many thanks for offer to look up requested information. 188.29.81.212 (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Aside from an IP number, have you also edited under a name? Tx. Epeefleche (talk) 00:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I now only edit as a "dynamic" IP because it focuses me on content building and insulates me from a lot of the nonsense on WP. Not true dynamic ofc as no proxy, but the IP address is re-assigned every few hours so I don't usually have to read talk page messages unless I happen to check back again.

If you can't find the page number of that people's pharmacy book, it could be safely dropped from the article since the newspaper source (which I can read online) will support all the content of that section. But at the FA reviewers are bound to ask for page number of a book source. 92.40.89.201 (talk) 08:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

As to the preview, the page is 122. Epeefleche (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Aside from an IP number, have you also edited under a name? Epeefleche (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

None of your business. 188.29.94.194 (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

As of

Interesting to chat to you about English usage. In case you haven't already done so, can you be mindful of the closer's comment here? You took that to AN/I awfully quickly. Next time, please consider a longer discussion first. There's enough drama on the project already without whipping up more. Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 10:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I considered the circumstances before bringing it to AN/I. The rate of changes being made by the editor. The fact that I had attempted discussion. The fact that despite discussion, and examples, and my request that he desists, the dozens-of-changes-per-day were continuing unabated. The fact that I don't have the tools to address the mass-reverts needed. And, considering that, I thought AN/I appropriate, as I needed its input. The closer's comments were accurate as of the time of the closing -- because, as you know, the editor changed his behavior ... but only after the AN/I was filed. This is one time that an AN/I worked, and prevented further needless drama -- and the thoughtful discussion was all drama-free, and contrary to your characterization no drama was "whipped up" ... we all know what that sort of event looks like, and this wasn't it. --Epeefleche (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, all fair comments. Where do you think the content discussion about the matter could best be concluded? --John (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

No doubt there may be more than one place. But the locus of the current discussion seems most appropriate at the moment. The AN/I pointed to the editor's talk page, allowing the discussion to take place there (as it did), so a summation of the consensus view of the discussion would I would think naturally take place there. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Fleadh Nua

Can you please take this to WP:AfD instead? Sorry to make more work for you, but this may be controversial. Bearian (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll first trim some uncited/challenged cruft, and tag it for notability. Let's see if someone comes along to evidence notability. If not, I'll consider PROD or AfD. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

International Islamic Relief Organization

Please keep International Islamic Relief Organization on your watch list. It was removed from Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by the United States government along with other deletions two months ago without anybody noticing. I have reverted the edits by the anonymous user. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Excelsior Recordings

Hi, I like to draw your attention to the article Excelsior Recordings where I am in conflict with another editor. Root of the conflict is the adding of a significant list on artists without own article. Now the other guy is falsely templating me for edit warring, it seems time to call in some back up. Knowing that you do a lot of work on lists and on music, you seem a useful guy to approach. I hope you want to shed your light on the matter. The Banner talk 11:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Ynet survey of the greatest 200 Israelis

Hello Epeefleche,

Although I thank you for your good intentions of adding to the biographies of the 200 Israelis on Ynet's list of the greatest 200 Israelis the fact that they appeared on the list, I found the mentioning of the appearance on the list to be inappropriate in a biographical article. Here are my two major issues

1. Anybody can create a list. Unless it's mentioned by others, it's considered Original Research and therefore not notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Unlike a prize such as the Israel Prize or the Nobel Prize that are mentioned by numerous secondary sources unrelated to the prize organizing committee, I have not found any secondary source reporting on the list
2. But the bigger issue is the significance of the surveys. In order for the survey to be valid, the sample has to be random. Because this was a survey that was limited to just people who visit the YNET site, the population is NOT random. Therefore, it is not a survey of who the public thinks are the best Israelis, but rather who YNET readers think are the best Israelis, making the survey even less meaningful.

Bottom line: the survey was done as part of the entertainment section of the web site, not news. It therefore does not belong in encyclopedic biographical articles. You saw what happened when articles about the surveys were created: WP:Articles for deletion/200 Greatest Israelis and WP:Articles for deletion/200 greatest Israelis.
Again, please accept my apologies for removing the effort you went through to put that information in 200 biographical articles, but I believe that placing this information, which was created in the name of fun and games, in a serious biographical articles actually reduces the quality of the biographical articles.
Sincerely, Yonideworst (talk) 04:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for gracing my page with such a long and detailed post in your 277th post ever.

You seem familiar. Have you ever edited wikipedia under a different name or IP address? Epeefleche (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

No doubt about it, you are a far more prolific contributor to Wikipedia than I am. The nice thing about Wikipedia is that it has very clear policy guidelines, so disputes should focus on adherence to the policy guidelines, and not on individual Wikipedian experience, or lack there of. Yonideworst (talk) 05:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You seem familiar. Have you ever edited wikipedia under a different name or IP address? Epeefleche (talk) 05:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

One of those very clear policy guidelines is that editors must declare their editing history, so could you please answer Epeefleche's question. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll record here why I am deleting these "n-th greatest Israel" items, which frankly I have found embarrassing since they first appeared. (1) The poll was extremely unscientific and did not even accurately survey Ynet readers, since it is well known that allowing subjects to self-select strongly biases the results. (2) The choice of which people were on the list at all was mostly made by the newspaper. (3) Everybody past about rank 20 would have gotten very few votes, and over rank 100 barely a handful, so those positions are meaningless even within the overall sample. (4) Polls like this are severely skewed by social media, where people urge others to vote for their favorites musicians or whatever. (5) The report is incorrect, eg. "Leah was voted the 152nd-greatest Israeli of all time" — in fact nobody voted Lea 152nd-greatest anything. The actual meaning is that Leah obtained the 152nd fewest votes for being one of the 3 greatest Israelis of all time, which is quite different (and even less interesting). (6) As stated by the admin who deleted the articles on this poll, there has been precious little coverage of this poll by secondary sources (for this poll, Ynet is a primary source). Actually it was just one of those bits of ephemeral fun that newspapers have sometimes and certainly did not deserve to grace 200 wikipedia pages. Zero<sup>talk</sup> 11:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Cornwall_Centre_(Regina,_Saskatchewan)#Proposal to overturn to keep

I believe that you may be interested in this topic.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Campus Watch

Not a reliable source for living people, along with FrontPageMag and its other Horowitz clone sites. Known for fringe opinions, etc. and is effectively a self-published source by a partisan interest group. As with ZMag or AlterNet or similar sites, it is usable for citing its own opinions in relevant articles, but not for claims about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• North -- that may well be; I haven't checked those refs, so I couldn't say.

The problem I pointed out to you is that, at least in your last few edits, you repeatedly deleted material that was appropriate. You also repeatedly did it either with: a) completely misleading edit summaries; or b) incorrect edit summaries, such as indicated that a clear RS was not an RS. That's not appropriate. Furthermore, please stop deleting dead refs just because the link is dead. They should be left as-is; a bot may fix them. --Epeefleche (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I have replaced the dead link at your request. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks. Here is some background for you on the subject: WP:BADLINK. Epeefleche (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

And actually, I googled it and was able to fix the broken link. I'll try to be a little less hasty next time. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Nice work. Please consider my comments above on the other issues, as well. Best of luck. Epeefleche (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

redirects vs afd

For primary and intermediate school articles without any special distinction, I am a little surprised you aren ot just redirecting them to the district (etc.), The time to use AfD is if someone reverts the redirect, because then the matter is controversial. But I don't see the point of using it for routine cases--I have redirected a few hundred such articles over they years, with perhaps 1 or 2 complaints. or reverts DGG ( talk ) 15:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

You will recall we've discussed this before. If/where it's so clear, you may want to SNOW-close AfDs. Epeefleche (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It should be quite clear that the vast majority of these AfD will close as 'redirect' so it's really a waste of everyone's time to have to read them and paste our 'redirect' rationales time and time again. Ironically though, these closures do reinforce the tacit consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

You will recall we've discussed this before. If/where it's so clear, you may want to SNOW-close AfDs. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

With 131,000 edits and six years on Wikipedia I'm sure that you have sufficient knowledge and confidence to summarily carry out redirects of non controversial school articles. If you want them redirected, it might not save you a lot of work but it would certainly relieve the load on AfD and the users who have to vote there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You will recall we've discussed this before. It would save me work, btw -- if I believed it was the correct thing for me to do. I don't see any need for you to post again what we've already discussed at length before. Feel free to SNOW-close AfDs; I am supportive of that. But no need for you to re-hash here what I've already responded to. Epeefleche (talk) 05:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I fully realise that this has been discussed before, but IMHO the mass AfD activity could be broadly construed as being disruptive especially when there is a perfectly reasonable alternative. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that you are mistaken. And exaggerating. I've told you, at length, why I think it inappropriate for me to redirect such articles. Why I do not think it is a "perfectly reasonable alternative." You are well aware of that. You don't share my view. I, for my part, think that editors could be deemed to be disruptive for "stealth" redirects. When that avoids the scrutiny, if nobody is watching, of even one other editor. I'm also aware that those articles that I do not think should be stand-alone are thought by others to be appropriate for a stand-alone. And sometimes, as happened this week, they after AfD remain a stand-alone. I don't think it is correct for you to try to bulldoze me -- or any other editor, for that matter -- into taking such action, for the reasons I've discussed with you at length, and in the absence of a guideline that says "don't bring these articles to AfD, but rather redirect them". I also don't see the wonderful benefit you see in a redirect, where the target has no information of value to the reader, but that's a side issue and not of great import. I think you cause more work by redirecting PRODs of schools, or others do by denying PRODs of schools. I also don't see why for years you avoid SNOWing such AfDs, and continue to do so until today, and have continued to not explain why (but no need to answer, as there is no need for you to post here again). In short, I don't see you saying anything new, so I would urge you not to post on the same subject here again. At this point, its badgering, and non-productive. I've given you very long and considered responses over the years. Thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 06:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Another editor chiming in here: Each editor is entitled to decide themselves how aggressive they choose to act regarding redirects or deletions. I have chosen to support redirects of almost all primary school and middle school articles I see at AfD. I have nominated none and redirected none myself. That's just my way of improving the encyclopedia as I see it, without siding decisively with deletionism. I think that I am doing my part. I do not think it wise to criticize any good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia. I never consider a good faith, well-reasoned AfD nomination to be disruptive in any way. Cullen<sup>328</sup> Let's discuss it 06:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, and I think Kudpung also, we will only do admin actions that we know express the will of the community, and only on issues where we are not involved. I know I do not trust myself to interpret the will of the community in matters where I have a strong opinion; my role in such cases is that of any editor--to express m opinions and leave it at that. If I were inclined to arbitrary actions, I would simply ban you (Epeefleche) from initiating school deletions but no matter how much I think it desirable, all I can do is try to convince you--and if necessary others. (Yes, it's true that those of us who take our ethical responsibilities seriously necessarily operate under rstraints, but that after all is the purpose of ethics. It has always put the honest people at the merch of the unscrupulous, unless they can mobilize general opinion. DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I am glad, DGG, that you are ethical. Because I think that it would be a terrible thing to ban a good faith editor from nominating school articles for deletion. AfD should always be an acceptable alternative for editors uncomfortable with quicker deletion processes. I have given my attention, willingly, to a couple of thousand AfD debates. It is honest work. I do not complain about good faith AfDs. Cullen<sup>328</sup> Let's discuss it 06:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I hate to pile on .... but I simply find it irritating having to paste my rationale constantly at these school afds (Yeah sure I don't have to vote but someone has too I suppose), I'm sure he's acting in good faith, Anyway my suggestion is simply to start redirecting perhaps slowly, & just work your way up, If you feel uncomfortable redirecting yourself simply stop nominating schools, Regards, –Davey2010 • (talk) 12:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said before, I question whether "stealth" redirects are appropriate, as distinct from AfDs, speedy deletes, and PRODs -- all of which involve someone other than 1 lone editor taking action. I have seen enough !votes other than redirect at such AfDs (they pepper even the current AfDs), and even closes other than redirect (just this week, we've also had at least one no-consensus keep), to bolster my sense that -- for me, certainly -- it would be inappropriate to redirect such articles, just on the basis of my personal view. So I choose not to. Davey makes a good point--editors who don't wish to !vote need not !vote -- these AfDs typically close with more than the requisite !votes, when they do close. Also, editors are free to SNOW close AfDs that meet the SNOW criteria -- it is perhaps of interest that we rarely if ever see that happen at school AfDs. PROD (with a sysop exercising discretion to redirect) or speedy would lower the AfD count ... except that the community has decided that school AfDs should not go through those processes, but rather should have the community input of an AfD, which of course in itself cuts against the "let's sneak this by the community and erase the stand-alone through a redirect that perhaps nobody will notice" approach. I do think the Project is better for these articles not remaining as stand-alones, which is what prompts my school AfDs, which almost never exceed a couple a day. As to the ad hominem remarks further up the page, I'll simply ignore them. --Epeefleche (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Epeefleche, I think it would clarify things if you made it clear whether you were indeed nominating for deletion so the community should review it, or whether this is instead because you actually feel there should not even be a redirect? Neither is dishonorable.

More generally, I have several times proposed that we cal lAfD, Articles for Discussion, without the presumption that the intended end is necessarily deletion. This was actually approved by consensus a bout 5 years ago, but nobody ever got around to making the necessary changes in templates and procedures. The 2 subsequent times I've proposed it, therewas not quite sufficient consensus. Perhaps its time for another discussion. DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

DGG, I think we may well have had this conversation in the past. But in the event you forgot, when I nominate for deletion I do so because I am of the opinion that the article should be deleted.

I often am of the view that a redirect is an acceptable alternative if the community deems it so -- under the rubric that "redirects are cheap" (though I'm not sure how cheap ... as we have lost tools recently because they strain the system, I'm aware that there can be a cost). At the same time, redirect is typically not my first choice in these instances, as I frankly question the "brilliant" logic of a redirect, as it quite often redirects the reader to a page that imparts absolutely zero information as to what the reader may be interested in learning. I also note that we don't redirect all manner of other subjects that we know "exist", but that are not wp notable, so there is an inconsistency in the "rally round the indirect" knee-jerk reaction. I often !vote "Delete or Redirect" at such AfDs started by others, under the same thinking.

That said, when I nominate a school for deletion, I do so because I think that would be an appropriate treatment of the subject, though where the community rallies around a redirect, even if it is not what I think preferable I typically find it acceptable. The main point for me, and one on which I believe there is the greatest consensus, is that there should not be a stand-alone of those articles, and that issue is addressed either way. What the AfD does allow, btw, is editor input -- and I note that within just this past week you yourself have !voted Keep on a primary/middle school AfD, availing yourself of that opportunity.... even where I personally thought that was not the correct result (though I never did get a chance to !vote). "Stealth" redirects of articles like that can easily avoid the attention of editors like you, and thus be redirected even if under the scrutiny of the community they would be kept.

I will also note that OUTCOMES is either outdated, or was incorrect from the outset. We do sometimes merge non-notable schools (which also gets rid of the redirect, so it satisfies that concern of mine). But that happens, based on my observation over the past year or two, with much less frequency than our deletion of articles (which I know you will disparage as the product of wayward editors, but on this point we disagree). The suggestion in OUTCOMES that merge is a more common outcome than delete at school AfDs of less-than-high-schools is simply a flat mis-statement. Anybody can look at the AfD closes, and ascertain this. For those who dislike deletions of NN schools, it is a bald mis-statement they may wish to perpetuate (and then point to at AfDs), but that of course would not be ... what is the word ... ethical. Epeefleche (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I haven't seen these AFDs. I do occasionally work on school articles as part of my larger work on articles in the place where I live. Fairly recently, what started as a minor issue with one article soon escalated into several editors who are active on school articles performing "cleanup", which to me resembled something more like a solution in search of a problem. The pattern was all too obvious: continue to push the POV that notability is strictly black and white, that high schools are inherently notable and all other schools are inherently non-notable, any possible indications to the contrary or any prior efforts made in good faith to build the encyclopedia be damned. The end result? We have articles on high schools which aren't that terribly notable that serve little purpose beyond being a collection point for cruft. We have articles on defunct schools which don't reflect that fact, because the schools were so small and obscure when they existed that reliable sources pertaining to their closure are lacking. OTOH, I witnessed a slew of "merge/redirects" on middle school articles which were really backdoor deletions, replacing content of encyclopedic value with content more closely resembling "an indiscriminate collection of information". Watching this slavish devotion to policy/guidelines take precedence over what's credible or useful to the reader makes me wonder why I'm bothering to begin with. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 11:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

RadioKAOS - It's not a slavish devotion to policy/guidelines. As DGG and I have mentioned several times, it's an aim for consistency in interpreting those policies. All our policies and guidelines have been agreed by consensus. If everyone had free reign to invent their own policies on-the-fly, what would happen then? (rhetorical question). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

To mirror your edit summary, I have no desire myself to argue this ad infinitum. "What would happen then"? I'm well aware of the fact that content isn't read exclusively by the uninitiated. I'm also well aware that people follow the evolution of content yet aren't actively involved in discussion and consensus building. These are people in a position to influence perceptions of Wikipedia's credibility out in the real world. I don't see "consistency" as helping that, as the organic nature of content building has long been a key to Wikipedia's appeal. DGG makes an excellent suggestion below, as "consistently" ignoring case-by-case notability only furthers that credibility gap. The major problem I see with the idea is in further taxing active editors. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, You seem to be under the impression we have been deleting school articles. I don't think do. , except when they are particularly bad, or particularly incomplete or dubious in some other way such as copyvio, If there have been others, We should be able to work together to at least the extent of clarifying this. I want clarify this, so could you tell me which ones they are?

I have never seen an argument from you or anyone else that it is better to totally delete school articles than to make a redirect/merge to a list for the district or town. if it is done uniformly, However, if you are going to take them to afd, where there's about a 10 or 20% chance that anything can happen, then I thin it will be necessary to see how much of a justification can be found for making as many full articles as possible (of course some will always be notable or even famous, but by my current view it's about 1% of them. But if there s pressure to change the view in one direction, I can easily think of many reasons besides the ones I now use that the community will at least sometimes accept, and you and I both will be spending much of our time there. Is this really waat you want to do?

But i have a better suggestion: let us both together work for changing AfD to articles for discussion, to really establish the policy that all disputed merges and redirects can go there for final settlement, and that any close is acceptable, That way we at least wont be disputing the procedural issues, which will be a step forward. Howabout it. DGG ( talk ) 11:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

.

Ecuador

If you read WP:BURDEN through to the end, you will note that it says that there are better ways to engage with your fellow editors and get citations added where missing. I have to say that you have not improved the encyclopaedia one iota with the deletion of trivially uncontroversial statements about sport in Ecuador. Why don't you just empty Sport in Evuador given that it contains no citations whatsoever? Your edits on Ecuador are a menace to the community. Atlas-maker (talk) 07:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that your edit-warring on this issue in another article led to you being blocked. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

As did your block evasion. Epeefleche (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Elementary schools

Say, why not just boldly turn those into redirects as you find them and haul them to AfD only if you get reverted? Even my copy-pasting a stock rationale seems a waste of time... Carrite (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's right for me, one editor, to do so on my own say-so. Other editors disagree with me often enough that a "stealth" redirect away from the community eye is not something I choose to engage in. Feel free to SNOW-close any appropriate AfDs. Or to support PROD (or speedy) of such articles, with the closer being free to redirect rather than redelete if the closer feels it appropriate. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Epeefleche, I'm sorry to have to post here again in spite of your suggestion that I stay away, but this is now a policy-related explanation. At this point, it's still not badgering, and and it's only non-productive if you find the advice and policies hard to accept. If you are confident enough to send articles to AfD on your own say-so, then from what you have learned from the vast majority of outcomes of the hundreds of AfDs you have nominated, you almost certainly by now have sufficient experience to make appropriate redirects - a much less bureaucratic process - on your own say-so. Over the years not only I, but many other users have attempted (including DGG) to explain countless times (I have reviewed every single discussion) that unilateral redirects are perfectly admissible. There are clear recommendations in both guidelines and policies how some kinds of articles should be handled. It is also a major and significant exception (in bold in the policy) that school articles enjoy additional protection from deletion at WP:A7, which is not supposed to be interpreted that they should therefore all be sent summarily to AfD instead.

If you think the article should be a disambiguation page, or a redirect to another article, then recommend "Disambiguation" or "Redirect". Do not recommend deletion in such cases. (WP:AFDFORMAT}

If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. This should be done particularly if the topic name is a likely search term. (WP:BEFORE).

In the case of schools a well established precedent evidenced by over 1,000 redirects strongly emphasises these policies and guidelines. You can choose to discredit WP:OUTCOMES as an essay, but it is a simple report that documents, well, outcomes. It is neither outdated nor irrelevant.

Many discussions and RfC have failed to change either that precedent or the recommendations at WP:ATD-M and WP:ATD-R (these are policies rather than just guidelines). By not according these policies due consideration, it places a significant and unnecessary burden on the AfD system and the users who have school articles on their watchlists.

Snow Close test: Snow closes are somewhat of a grey area and should not be made unless the outcome is almost 100% certain - in which case again, the AfD would clearly have been unnecessary, and in which case again, you are also aware. In order to preserve the guidelines, policies, procedures, and precedents to ensure that the correct consensus is reached, some users prefer to !vote on such AfD rather than attempt a SNOW close (or any other close). They therefore cannot close an AfD in which they have participated. A misjudged snow close can create more bureaucracy than it was destined to avoid. A summary redirect does not and neither is it a 'stealth' action.

The compromise I suggest is that you stop creating these AfDs and/or agree that you can indeed do uncontroversial redirects yourself, and bring to AfD those, and only those, that do have an extreme likelihood of actually being deleted rather than redirected. Therefore, rather than starting a community discussion which would use up even more editor time, I'm asking you as friendly as possible to reconsider your stance on non notable school articles. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Epeefleche, could I suggest a way to handle this situation that doesn't involve AfD, but also isn't an abrupt and arbitrary redirect? Just put the following note on the school article's talk page: "I propose to redirect this page to [[Name of school district]] if no one objects. That is the usual Wikipedia practice for elementary and middle schools unless they have received an unusual amount of coverage to make them notable." After a week, if no one has objected, do the redirect. This is what I do and it works great - article redirected, no AfD necessary. You just need to be sure you keep a list of the articles you have tagged, so you can go back after a week and do the redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• • MelanieN, this seems a good practical idea to me. WP is NOT A BUREAUCRACY. Eppefleche, what you are apparently trying to do is not wrong, but it is confusing the issue, and I don;t see thep oint of continuing it when simpler means are available. . DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I only have a moment now, so I will read Kud's longer (though first) post later. Replying to Melanie (which replies to DGG as well), the problem is that I don't think it's right for me, one editor, to do so on my own say-so. The effect of a redirect is very close to that of delete (except that a knowledgeable reader can find the history, but I think those are few of our readers). And for deletes, we don't allow stealth moves by a single editor -- either they are speedied (at least one other editor reviews, and takes the action of the nom), they are PRODed (same), or they are AfD's (same). In each case, an editor other than a nom takes the action. And in each case, after they are placed in a category that may receive review by multiple editors in addition to the editors following that article.

Your suggested solution is well intended, as it is not what you refer to as "abrupt and arbitrary" as a single-editor-POV redirect would be. But it still lacks the indicia of being in a "the community can view it here, and someone other than the nom will act on it" bucket that we have in speedy, PROD, and AfD.

Thinking along your lines, one way we could address this is to allow PROD of such articles (and by allow, I mean in practice -- our rules certainly allow it). The closer of the PROD could then either delete or redirect, or neither, as the closer sees fit. That would address my above concerns. I would be open to considering doing that. Epeefleche (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It would be great if you would do me the courtesy of reading my post as soon as possible because your reply to MelanieN leapfrogs some of the issues and the discussion will soon need to be taken somewhere else rather than turning your talk page into a debate that has concerns for the broader community. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• My opinion is that turning a primary school article into a redirect isn't so very bold as that is the usual outcome, and nothing is destroyed, it is all in the article history. I've run across many, many of these articles both before and after the bit, and handled them the same. Redirecting to the school district is much better than deletion at AFD, which is unlikely I admit, but time consuming nonetheless. At least it gets the reader to the right general area. As a function of what serves the reader's best interest, redirecting is better than AFD because of the consistency. The same is true for we editors, as it is going to end up there anyway, so the path that uses the least amount of clicks by the least amount of people is best. I just fail to see anything controversial in redirecting these primary schools, and you do us all a favor if you just do so on your own. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• @Kudpung -- Hi. A few thoughts. Apologies for this being an ultra-long post. Much repeats what I've already written. But I wanted to clarify some that appears to remain unclear, and expand on it with ways forward that we might consider.

First -- I'm interested in hearing responses from Melanie to my post to her. Also, I appreciate her tone, which is a helpful one.

Second -- my suggestion/request to Kudpung as to badgering stands.

I've written repeatedly that if we had a policy that clearly stated: "Rather than bring lower-school articles to AfD, they should be redirected, without first being posted elsewhere (such as at speedy or redirect or AfD)", I would enthusiastically agree with such a policy.

One could, in fact, have such a policy for all articles that might otherwise be brought to AfD, or PROD, or Speedy, if the community so desired it. Or one could have a policy for certain segments of all such articles. For example ... malls below 500K sq ft in size, and baseball/basketball/hockey/soccer/football players that are not in the top league, and singers that do not have 2 albums by a major label. If the community reaches such a conclusion as to any such grouping, or all of them, along those lines, I would be happy to do so.

But we don't have that.

Furthermore, what you have told me is that the community cannot reach agreement as to a school notability guideline. That's why, I understand it, we only have the essay Outlines. Which you say is only a sign of how we handled past similar (in certain respects) school articles at AfD. And which, at least as to schools, is not even accurate, as it misleads readers as to the actual typical closes of school AfDs of primary/middle schools (you would agree, would you not?).

So, what lesson can I learn from your indication that the reason we don't have a notability guideline for schools is because the community could not reach consensus on one? My view is that if the community cannot reach consensus in this regard, it would certainly be less than appropriate for me to act as though it has a consensus, and redirect by stealth redirect (I would in general be against stealth redirects, but am even more so in areas where attempts to forge a notability guideline failed to garner consensus support).

If you would like to open up a community discussion to turn Outlines into a notability guideline, I would support that. This makes sense if you feel that Outlines reflects community consensus. If you don't wish to do this -- because you feel there is not in fact community consensus for such a guideline (which is I believe is what you asserted in the past), then of course we should perhaps tread lightly rather than make a King-has-no-clothes assertion.

Yes, I am confident in my bringing articles to AfD "on my say-so" that they are worthy of community discussion. To see if the community agrees with my assessment. But that is a far cry from your assertion -- saying that of course them I am comfortable that the community will agree with me. Often enough one or more editors, or the closer, do not agree with me to give me pause on making such a unilateral decision on that basis. That's a major problem for me, in taking on the suggestion that I make a "stealth" redirect (where only those of are watching the page, if any, see it ... and/or the page creator, often long gone in such circumstances, received notification ... but the community, which would see boards such as PROD or SPEEDY or AFD do not see it).

And that aspect -- not having the article posted somewhere (as we do at AfD and Speedy and Prod) where the community can look at it -- is to me a significant difference. And not having an editor other than the nominator effect the nominator's suggested change is another significant difference. These are two important safeguards IMHO.

If we are looking to reduce the bureaucracy, as I said in my post to Melanie, I'm happy to work with her to think of ways we can do that that don't require any editor to avail themselves of a process without the two safeguards we have in all other approaches that remove stand-alones: 1) posting the article somewhere where the community knows it can see it if it is checking for such articles; and 2) someone other than the nom effecting the change (whether it is a delete or a redirect).

That could take place anywhere. It could take place at speedy, with a sysop redirecting or deleting. It could take place at PROD, with a sysop redirecting or deleting. (I see that Kudpung has redirected such articles brought to PROD, for example, but that DGG has simply declined such articles at PROD, and not redirected them). It could take place on a to-be-created board, with a sysop redirecting or deleting.

Anyway, if I could use PROD, for example, which other editors check, and where a sysop ... and a person other than me ... makes the final decision, and takes the final action, that would work for me. And then those articles would not end up at AfD, reducing bureaucracy.

I'm also troubled, by the way, that there seems to be some undue and unwarranted pressure brought on editors who argue against Outcomes. I generally disagree with such editors. If the editors participated at any one AfD as a whole, however, they would likely be greater in number than those of us who afford some weight to Outcomes. And yes -- that means that the position that I support, though supported by history at AfD, and may be out-!voted if all those individual editors were brought together. They only tend to !vote on the AfD of the one school they care about. I think that Outcomes, btw, also misleads editors into thinking that more articles are merged that deleted, but I think otherwise Outcomes is accurate, and I think we have to work out what weight the community thinks we should give it and if it is significant as most of us who edit these AfDs heavily think it is. If we do have a meta discussion on whether Outcomes should be a guideline, I would suggest that if we want a result reflecting consensus (not just a result reflecting the views of 10 of us who frequent Schools AfDs) we should invite to it editors who have participated in school AfDs over a period of time. In just the past few weeks, I've seem a number of impassioned arguments, including those of at least one sysop of longstanding, against the use of Outcomes, and though I've typically been on the other side of those discussions, I think if we are to respect the community and not just ramrod a result the most active of us prefer, that would be the way to engage the community.

Schools by the way are treated more gingerly - when it comes to deletion - than other subjects. For example, while various other topics are subject to speedy, schools are not. Which of course militates in favor of not getting rid of stand-alones without the opportunity for community input, as described above.

I understand that others may be bolder than I am. And believe that for themselves redirect without community discussion, and without another editor performing the redirect, is fine. I've also seen editors lambasted for taking such action. Different editors can reasonably have different views, as to themselves, in this regard. But it is quite another thing to say "other" editors (or certain of the other editors) must redirect school articles. In the absence of a guideline saying that. But, as I said, if we had a guideline saying that, I would be fine with it.

As to my views on whether such articles should be deleted or redirected, please see my response to DGG above. Furthermore, I do consider merger. And I do consider redirect. I fully comply with wp:before.

As to the impact of turning a school article into a redirect, I think it is nearly as impactful as a delete. True, for the sophisticated wp editor, we can of course access article history. But obviously most of our readers are not so sophisticated. So where the impact on the vast majority of readers will be so great, I choose not to be so Bold. Just as we would not engage in "stealth" deletions".

As to the value of the redirect, I see it as exceedingly unlikely to tell the reader anything close to what he is looking for when he looks for the topic. I think it would be the highly unusual reader who would say "Oh wow -- this school is in district x, or city y, that's precisely what I wanted to know when I searched for it!" Still, even when I am of the view that delete is the more appropriate of the two, I am often of the view that redirect is acceptable, as it addresses the primary issue -- the fact that there should not be a stand-alone article.

As to AfDs I bring, please feel free to SNOW-close them. If the OUTCOMES consensus is as strong and meaningful as you assert, that should lead to most school AfDs by all editors in this area being SNOW-closed. The fact that you don't strikes me as odd. You suggest above that it would be fine to engage in the (what I call "stealth" -- as it is away from public scrutiny) redirect. But that you will not SNOW-close the same article ... because the outcome is not clear enough, or you want to establish some precedent? That makes no sense to me. If you want to SNOW-close a school article I nominate, do so. And I won't (unless and until I ever change my mind, which is unlikely) ever protest you snow-closing an AfD where most editors !vote the way you close it. That should reduce bureaucracy.

Also, if I PROD a school AfD, and you delete or redirect it, I similarly as above won't protest your action. That's because it will have been on a public board. And because another editor other than the nom will have taken action on it.

Anyway, I've -- in large part driven by what Melanie posted -- posed a number of suggestions above, and in my response to Melanie above that. All aimed at streamlining the system. All aimed at reducing bureaucracy. Without doing so in a manner that requires good faith editors to be Bolder than they legitimately feel they should be.Epeefleche (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Epeefleche, I understand your concern that you don't want to be the only eyes on the page, the only person making the decision. That is why I start with a note on the talk page. If there is anyone watching the article, they will come there and we can discuss what to do. Maybe they can improve the article to the point where it is notable, or sometimes I will just drop it on their assurance that they are going to work on it. If there is NOT anyone watching the article, that in itself may say something about both the importance of that school and the state of its Wikipedia article (which often turns out to be years out of date). After a week (or longer) has gone by with no response, I am comfortable redirecting to the school district, because 1) that is the usual consensus result, and agree with it or not, Wikipedia DOES work by consensus; and 2) it is easy to restore if someone later wants it back. Plus 3) I have helped to clean up and improve the encyclopedia without taking up anyone else's time over what is pretty much a foregone conclusion.

But if you are still uncomfortable about that despite all the people telling you it's fine to do it, I would suggest you do a PROD instead of an AfD, and say in your rationale or your edit summary "in lieu of deletion, consider redirecting to [[Name of school district]]". That way it will be available for discussion for a week, if anyone cares to chime in, and the close will be done by someone other than yourself. However, don't be surprised if you find admins coming here to tell you "that's not what PROD is for, just redirect it yourself." Just as they are now coming here to say "that's not what AfD is for, just redirect it yourself." But if you really feel the need of more process, then a PROD would be less disruptive to the community as a whole and would involve the time of fewer people. --MelanieN (talk) 04:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Melanie, thanks. Your suggestion in your second para would address my concerns.

As to why the first para approach does not address my two concerns, I tried to detail them above in my uber-long post. As I mentioned, the impact for the vast majority of readers is the same w/a delete or a redirect. With deletes, we do always require the safeguards you indicate -- notice on the page and notice to the creator. But we also have two other safeguards: that the act be noticed on a community board, where those in the community interested in those things can see it (rather than away of the eyes of the community, by "stealth"). And that a person other than the nom do the act (whether it be deletion or redirect). I prefer deletion, for the reasons detailed above, in those topics I nominate, but am open to redirect on them for schools even though that is not my preference. It's because your approach lacks those two safeguards, that I do not think it is appropriate for me to take that approach. But your first-mentioned approach works for me, as it would provide those safeguards. (And if it were allowed on speedy, I would be happy to do it there, with the closer being able to exercise judgment to either redirect or delete as appropriate -- at least those are noticed on a board, and are closed by another editor.)

As to other possible improvements, that came up in the above discussion, I would be supportive of an effort to change Outcomes into a notability guideline. That would streamline discussion. Those editors who say: "it's just an essay not a guideline", and "it describes what we've done in the past but is not a description of what we should do now," are making reasonable comments that ... though I tend to be on the opposite side of them in the discussion ... could be best addressed summarily with a guideline. And if the King has clothes, and there is community consensus that this past general practice should pretty much dictate the close of most school AfDs, then of course there would be consensus for the guideline. Epeefleche (talk) 05:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Hi Epee, I very much appreciate your responding at length (I know how long it takes to write these things) and you can be sure that I have read it very carefully and several times over. What then however becomes fairly clear to me is that you probably did not read my post with as much attention, missed several vital points, including the references to, and links to various policies, and other links. You appear to have also missed my explanation for SNOW closes, and failed to acknowledge the enlightenment I have provided many times for OUTCOMES - which leads me to believe that you possibly don't follow the outcomes of your AfDs.

I have repeatedly demonstrated that OUTCOMES is neither a guideline nor a policy, nor any other form of recommendation, it is purely and simply a paper where where the majority outcomes are documented. The actual evidence for those outcomes is elsewhere for anyone who cares to look. I also feel that your use of the word stealth is rather unguarded - it makes those of us who make these redirects sound as if we are a band of covert deletionists, which obviously we are are not; if we were, we would also be scouring the 'pedia for articles to delete and radically producing serial AfDs, rather than saving and redirecting as many as we can.

IMO, taking into consideration the fact that schools are exempt from WP:A7, PRODs are not good for school articles - PRODS appear in chronological order in the admin control panel, and AFAICS, just get deleted on their expiry date without much further ado. When that happens, we may well be loosing potentially useful redirects.

Moreover, the impact of turning a school article into a redirect is therefore far less damaging than PRODing, or a deletion at AfD where the majority consensus (as demonstrated in one of the discussions in your archives) may lead to a wrong consenus due tho !votes of users who are less well versed in our policies and guidelines.

I remain wholly convinced that where you are well aware that 90% of your AfDs will conclude as 'redirect', the regular nominating of dozens, if not hundreds, of AfD in this manner is disruptive. I will address your suggestions and those of others for alternatives and/or changes to policy when I have time, but at this juncture I and several others are simply concerned that your mass producing of AfD in this manner is not appropriate.

The current discussions on your talk page are not new, there are also many others in your archives where I also had a lot to say over the years, but I was far from being alone in expressing these concerns.If you can't see your way to making totally acceptable redirects ethically on your own say-so, then I urge you to be at least far, far more selective in what you send to AfD. If you are still unable to accept that, as your talk page is quasi private and as I respect that and as the issue is to much to be resolved here, I will address this specific issue through a venue where the broader community can be heard; any decision they make will be theirs and not mine, and if the consensus falls contrary to what I will be proposing, I will not be worried either - what I and most others simply wish to achieve is consistency in the way school notability is handled whatever the rules, regulations, policies, and precedents say, without the rigmarole of persistent AfD, or yet another long and tedious debate (all other have failed leaving a tacit precedent which most of us observe) to get policies changed, and I think this can be done without unduly 'badgering' or embarrasing any good faith productive users or seeking for sanctions.

In the interests of transparency here is a link to another discussion which is developing where you are also more than welcome to join in, but I won't be taking up any more space on your talk page. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• • Just one semi-related comment. Kudpoung, I do patrol Prods, and have been doing so for years. I don't catch everything , but I do try to get there once a week and pick up the obvious -- for rescue or for transfer to afd or for speedy in the cases it matters. I notice from comments that some other people look also. But there is indeed a problem with admins who delete expired prods without thinking about the merits , just as there is with AfC G13s. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Though I'll give it more of a think, I think Melanie's

suggestion, especially as it is bolstered by DGG's above comment, is worth trying for seemingly less controversial articles. I've read all above posts, and my comments (many of which have not been responded to, but which I assume posters have read in turn; if I get a chance I will go back and title them for greater ease of access) address the issues. I'll think about this a bit more (but have limited computer access at the moment). I also think it worth addressing some of the meta issues I raised, and exploring a school notability guideline.Epeefleche (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Useful template

Per my response, I would invite you to check back in a few days and see what you think. In the interim, though: have you seen {{gender}}? {{Gender|Nikkimaria}} -> she. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nikki. I'm happy to not post in that discussion for a few days (other than a short post I will make now, responding to one part of your comment/query). And I'm not stalking your edits (hopefully you are not stalking mine, as we've discussed), so I don't expect I'll have any independent views on changes. Though I imagine others may do so, and may have views. Thanks for keeping an open ear. As to gender, have I used the wrong one for you? If so, please understand that it was not intentional, take "he" as meaning "he or she" as the context may require, and feel free to call me "she" if you like. Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

CISG

Dear Epeefleche, first of all apologies if I am an absolute beginner in contributing to Wikipedia and especially to a talk page. So please excuse any mistake. Secondly, I think you removed a small addition to the CISG page saying that the Limitation Convention is about... limitation. The title of the treaty says it. Any person vaguely familiar with the topic will confirm it. This is like asking for a reference to the statement that the sea is mostly made of water: I can find a reference, but it seems excessive to look for it. PS: why you can message me and I can't message you? I am sure there is a reason... thanks in advance for all the excellent work. Tottorimu (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Tottorimu

Hi. First, welcome. I appreciate your contributions. As to references, especially in regard to the very precise subjects that you appear inclined to edit in, it's best to assume that what is obvious to you may not be obvious to the reader who lacks your background. So, it is always best to add a ref. Otherwise, an uninformed reader cannot tell the difference between the veracity of what you add and what a mistaken editor (or vandal) adds. Always assume your reader is not familiar with the topic. As to messaging, I'm not sure what you refer to. You are leaving me a message here. You could alternatively (and this is more typical) have left me a response below my post on your talk page. I also have allowed (though not all editors allow it) for emails to be sent to me. You may wish to read wp:v, and to look at or possibly follow or join Wikipedia:WikiProject Law. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again Epeefleche. I knew you would make this argument and I have little to respond. However, please can you help me in finding out what you have removed? Is it really the sentence on the CISG page? It seems there now. And I found your comment on another page (Limitation Convention), but all the text seems there. Sorry for bothering so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tottorimu (talk • contribs) 19:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I was actually about to remove uncited material, but received your message first, and have held off to allow you to address the matter. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks again. I took corrective steps on both pages. Will build the Limitation Convention page little by little -- not many sources on that one, though, but will do my best to diversify citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tottorimu (talk • contribs) 20:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Pakistan Media and Arts

Hello. I've come to you because of an improve tag you recently added to article Kara Film Festival. This is an article amongst many I believe (rightly or wrongly) should probably be deleted, but the issue is much larger. The issue is that obviously no one is really looking at the growing number of non notable articles around the (naturally) self promoting arts and media about Pakistan and Pakistanis. My problem is that I know about it because I am involved and that means a conflict of interest. I know whether someone is notable or not because of my work. What I would really like is not to take any direct action at all myself (If I do more than a couple I will get outed and I will get persecuted by the individuals concerned with self promotion) but rather to periodically supply a list and details of non notable articles to an experienced editor that can take appropriate action in this area, a kind of partnership. I'm not assuming that this would be your fine self, but if it isn't you then can you link me with someone who might value such lists of articles that devalue this fine encyclopedia? PakArtPatrol (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gar2bong (talk • contribs) 20:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Shehzad Roy's page

I am unclear as to why you have deleted the portions I had added to the Shehzad Roy page. All my edits were well cited from reliable newspapers like DAWN, Tribune etc. I want to avoid an edit war so I would appreciate it if we could discuss your concerns here. I would be happy to incorporate your feedback into my future edits. Thanks!PKRedits (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi PK -- have you ever edited wp before, under a different name or IP address? --Epeefleche (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I see that you've been indef blocked. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Notability lists

Except that a lot of the bluelinked articles in many notability lists make no mention whatsoever of the place, school, etc., so a bluelink alone is untrustworthy.--209.122.114.237 (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

That's true. The same with refs, however -- they may also fail to support the text. And, of course, categories have neither. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Epeefleche. You have new messages at Bleaney's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Notability Guideline for 'Hammad Husain'

Hi Epeefleche. You have written on the BLP article Hammad Husain that "the topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies". I re-read the guideline and the section on Creative Professionals (point 4) states: "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

This article clearly meets (a) and (c) as Hammad Husain has designed the most published, most well-known (and even controversial) building in Pakistan: the farmhouse of former President Pervez Musharraf. However, that is not his only achievement that merits his inclusion into the list of BLP. He is a well-known and successful architect of the country. Compared with the handful of Pakistani architects in the article List of Pakistani architects, including Yasmeen Lari, Habib Fida Ali, Abdur Rahman Hye etc, Hammad Husain has had the most number of views in the last 30 days.

In addition,his article has seen vandalism, profanity and attempts by people to delete it. Hammad Husain seems to generate quite a bit of interest. The article surely needs improvement in citations and style and that will be done shortly.

Thank you for your input and understanding.Strafeme109 (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strafeme109 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. What independent reliable sources state that? Tx again. Epeefleche (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

ANB discussion

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265#Move War at History of the Jews in Nepal, and RFC review that concerns you because you were recently involved with one or more of the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Nepal, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 30 (History of the Jews in Nepal), Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal#RfC: Should we change article name to 'Judaism in Nepal'?. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

ISIS footnotes

Thanks very much for correcting the date formats in the footnote wikitext. I used to do it regularly but got tired of doing lazy editors' work for them! I used to convert their bare URLs for them as well but have given up trying to keep up with them. There seems to be no way of enforcing editors to compose footnotes properly. I have made a list of bare URLs on the Talk page here, so if you would like to convert those, please do! Even the footnote notice I put in at the head of "References" is being ignored. Very frustrating. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Michael S. Smith II

Hi, I've been helping clear the backlog of merger proposals, and so I saw that you proposed Michael S. Smith II be merged into Kronos Advisory back in July 2011. There was never any objection to this, but you didn't go ahead with the merge... did you change your mind?--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

No ... that's just not on my radar. Feel free to address it yourself, if you think it makes sense. Tx. Epeefleche (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Problem with your "fixed dashes using a script"

Please immediately stop using this and revert your edits. Edits like this have inserted emdashes in citation urls (which will break the link). There's no need to change any dashes inside citations. You also changed dashes in section titles (line 234) which can break redirects and other links.~Technophant (talk) 17:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Correction, I do see dashes changed inside URL's however there could be problems causes by changing section headers.~Technophant (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

please would you clarify: i do not see any urls being broken by the script. all the other changes appear to be addressing non-compliance with MOS:DASH, which is how it's supposed to be. Any section links broken are regrettable but MOS compliance is necessary; the collateral damage should be fixed if known. -- Ohc <sup>¡digame!</sup> 01:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't see any hyphens changed in URLs in the diff above either. Applying MOS:DASH to text of citations is entirely proper, as are various other changes in that situation (lower-casing all caps comes to mind). Further, applying MOS:DASH to section headers is a good thing, regardless of incoming REDIRECTs. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't see the problem. But Technophant, thanks for raising it, and will you please do so again if you notice anything wrong? Tony (talk) 07:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice

Please read this notification carefully:
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. RGloucester — ☎ 04:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you familiar with

This tool ? -- PBS (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Greek Canadians

Hi Epeefleche - you ran a script on Greek Canadians to change the format of dashes, but I have reverted to a previous version of the article to remove some copyvio content added prior to your edit. Can you please revisit Greek Canadians and re-run your script? Thanks, PKT(alk) 12:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Brian Kim DYK

I put in my 2 cents worth on the Brian Kim DYK, but as an editor just going through the DYK process for the first time (see Template_talk:Did_you_know#Serial_.28podcast.29 I hesitated because of the QPQ guideline. Let me know if I can help further. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Kamara James

I'm good with whatever you suggest regarding the image. Great work on the article too - I was sure it was a hoax about the death as originally it came from a non-notable blog. Lugnuts <sup>Dick Laurent is dead</sup> 11:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Brian Kim

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Shabbos App for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shabbos App is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabbos App (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Removal

Regarding this removal. I mean, it is already in the infobox, so why insist? Debresser (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It is manifestly appropriate for the text of an article on a software app to reflect who the developers are. It is so typical, that as you point out it is also called for in an infobox. The fact that an infobox (or a lede, for that matter) reflects something is not cause for its removal from the text of the article. An infobox "summarizes key features of the page's subject." And: "Purpose of an infobox. When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article." It summarizes what is in the text. It does not serve, typically, as the go-to place for that information, leading to the removal of the information from the text. The same with the lede -- we don't remove material from the lede, because it is in the text and/or the infobox, because the lede also is a summary of the text. I'm sure we would not go around deleting everything that is infoboxes (and ledes) from the text of articles ... for precisely this reason. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Bullpen_catchers Alex (talk) 05:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

About Sanki King

I still don't understand your issue with those sources. Does the reliable source have to be something coming from a newspaper only?? What I know about the guidelines is that the sources shouldn't be from the social media or from blogs. Now these 3 links aren't blogs they aren't social media sources or self published material. Then what's the problem? Maybe there is something that I don't know about reliable sources that you can shed light on. Youlin magazine is a very popular online magazine which is a collaboration between China and Pakistan, Sneakerness is one of the biggest sneaker conventions in the world and Campus Diaries is a collaborative online community of Indian-Pakistani writers and other creatives. They themselves can be verified if you google them. What I want to understand is that does Reliable source means NEWS? Or something that was published in a newspaper only? IF yes then why people use CNN & BBC sources when they are news channels and don't publish any newspaper etc. These 3 links are .com links and are interviews of Sanki which means Sanki is exclusively mentioned in them. Really looking forward to your reply. SameStruggle (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you and please take a look at this. This is directly from the wp:rs "Definition of published: The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online." These 3 sources you have issues with are "Online". Also "Context matters: Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article." These 3 sources directly support the information in the article. Also "Biased or opinionated sources: Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, 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." I hope this clears any misunderstandings and/or confusions about the sources that you were/are unsure about. Peace SameStruggle (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:Lisa. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. You can't use warning templates if you yourself are involved in the conflict. You will get yourself into trouble if you continue abusing such warning templates, and don't think these templates can help you get your way in conflicts. Someone just might be watching. JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to the wp introduction page. Actually, what you say is incorrect. You write that I've abused warning or blocking templates, because as you assert: "You can't use warning templates if you yourself are involved in the conflict." That's untrue. Epeefleche (talk) 02:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit to Rasmea Odeh

Please stop changing my text, specifically the diction I use when describing Odeh's sexual abuse/torture by the military while in Israeli prison. This information was not mentioned at all on her Wikipedia page before I added it. This is a shame, given that it is a significant part of the story, particularly as it relates to her claim of a forced confession of her involvement in the Jerusalem bombings, and that it is upon this false information that her current immigration fraud trial is based. The way it is written at this time, regardless of intent, seems to give credence to one side over the other, by stating that she merely "claimed that her confession was obtained after days of torture and sexual abuse by the Israeli military while she was in custody." This is unacceptable, as it could be interpreted (wrongly, to be clear) that these were simply "allegations," instead of a true account of what happened. Given Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view, I have edited the page to reflect this. Why you continue to revert the text back to this non-neutral state baffles me, but my point remains the same.

Additionally, regarding my so-called "unreliable sources": Mondoweiss is a news website devoted to covering American foreign policy in the Middle East, and In These Times is an independent, nonprofit news magazine. These fit under Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources. They are not blogs, and the articles I referenced were not opinion pieces. Both groups have journalists, editors and proofreaders to ensure reliability. I always ensure, before adding sources to Wikipedia, that they meet the proper criteria. Please stop removing my sources and calling them "unreliable" without doing your own research first.

67.91.131.190 (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

"the lede should repeat/summarize the most salient parts of the body"

Yes, the most salient parts -- not all of the parts! I left the salient parts. I don't see why nearly everything has to be said twice in one article. What's the point of either the lede or the body if they say the same thing? Also lame is that we again have a "citation needed" in the lede whereas there are actually citations in the body. Yeah sure, the article is better now with all of that crap back in. Whatever.

You know, this is precisely why editors leave Wikipedia. A well-meaning editor spends some quality time trying to make an article tighter and more readable without removing any information, and a speed-editor going for the record for number of edits uses a one-click utility to undo this work instantly, making the article worse again. I know my saying so won't influence your opinion, looking at the above discussions (in which you are always "right"), but I had to say it anyway. Good day and I hope not to cross paths again. PorkHeart (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the salient points. If the lede were a summary reflecting the salient points in the article, even if it looks as though it is repeating those salient points, that is what it should be doing. It should not be of course a repeat of the entire article; that would not be a summary. But if the summary, much shorter than the article, repeats not all the points but rather the salient points, then the "redundancy" of that repetition is not cause for deletion of salient points from the lede. Epeefleche (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: Your Welcome Message

You posted this on my talk page, presumably in reference to my edit on the Jerusalem synagogue massacre, claiming that I removed content without an explanation. This is absurd, since you actually responded to aforementioned "nonexistent" explanation [5]. Perhaps I was unclear in my explanation, but that said, it's clear that you have an obvious bias in the matter and your intimidation tactics are frankly unbelievable. Don't run around telling people that their contributions constitute "vandalism" just because they infringe upon your personal beliefs and think you can get away with it because you are targeting new users. Kellyabt94 (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

That was a response to your suggesting you would - after a NYT ref was added - delete it, but it was poorly worded. It should have said "appropriate explanation." On that, you are right, and perhaps we were both unclear. But the key point, as mentioned in my other post on the matter, was that one should not delete NYT refs and the text they support because we personally question the NYT. Again, welcome. Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Israel National Council for the Child

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Your aggressive harassment

Stop your harassment of me NOW! Unless you cease I will report you. I have already warned you to stay off my talk page, yet you persist in posting your harassments, this being the latest [6]. This is your FINAL WARNING. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This should go to ANI. Tiptoethrutheminefield made the same blustery threats to "report me" but it was all bluff. The fact is, his pattern of wikihounding has been noted before, as when both Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) and Brianhe (talk · contribs) pointed out that Tiptoethrutheminefield wasn't satisfied to fight with me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lindy West, so checked my recent edit history and followed me over to Talk:List of German inventions and discoveries to take the extraordinary position of supporting the notorious sock puppeteer Europefan/GLGerman. Purportedly because of an expansive inclusionist philosophy which Tiptoethrutheminefield had suddenly adopted in order to have something to fight about.

This hounding and battlefield behavior isn't going to stop until this goes to ANI for sanctions from the admins. He thinks all he has to do is delete warnings and threaten you back and he will get away with it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• This is some of the background to my concern about being hounded by Tip.

Since a dispute weeks ago, Tip followed me around the Project to confront my edits. At articles he had never edited before. For which he was warned by sysop Callanecc, among others (see here).

Tip's latest efforts included following me to an article today, and to my DYK nomination of this article, to confront my edits.

When I raised my concerns about hounding to him on his talkpage, he above warned me to stay off his talkpage .... and then tagged the above article I had worked on recently (with a dubious tag), and !voted against the article's DYK nomination I had made. Epeefleche (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Note: Tiptoe, having been warned in the past by a sysop that if he were to "continue to follow Epeefleche's" edits he may be blocked from editing for "harassment", has now been blocked for "hounding another editor; egregious personal attack". Epeefleche (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps it would be wise, my having advised Tiptoe to give you space, for you to avoid commenting on them and hold yourself voluntarily to the same standard? Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Of course. Advice taken. My goal was only to inform followers of this conversation, and editor Bratland who contributed to it, of the dry facts. Thanks for the advice. Epeefleche (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Harassment

Ask User:Xanthomelanoussprog, se his comment section below - Or. Rather - mail him.

Hi, I hatted your section "Suggestions?" on the Harassment policy talk page. The reason being is that complaints about harassment probably won't be noticed on that page, and don't exactly belong there. I would recommend talking to the administrator you mention in the thread, or going to ANI if you feel you are being harassed. --Kyohyi (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to un-hat it, respectfully. I want input from readers of that page as to what the best approach is -- for example, as you suggest (thanks). As to my next steps, and as to what to do in that situation when the editor does not want to be warned. Epeefleche (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

File:François-Joseph Navez - The Incredulity of Saint Thomas - Google Art Project.jpg

Balsam of Peru

Epeefleche you are wrong. My contribution is neither original research nor synthesis of published material. As a matter of fact, it has been common knowledge to somebody versed in the art for more than a century. If you have reasons to question the contents due to ignorance of the subject matter then, a prudent thing to do is to request citations to the contributor and, also, there is such thing as adding "citation needed" next to a questionable claim. However, you quickly deleted the contribution in it's entirety, something that you seem to do quite often and, which is akin to vandalism. If you cannot resist your urge to delete other editor's contributions, I suggest you notify the contributor of your concern and, after a reasonable time elapsed (such as, for example, a couple of weeks or a month) with no response from the contributor or, from other constructive editors who would add your requested sources, go ahead and indulge. 98.217.155.45 (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

On my Talk page you claim that I did not provide appropriate references. By now, I am talking about the deletion of: "such as for bonding lenses and other optical elements made out of glass to each other". Even if the cited references do not list all the uses of balsam of Peru in optics besides the most common use in microscopy glass, it is obvious, at least with some common sense, or logic reasoning, that balsam of Peru could also be used to glue other optical elements that match the properties described in the remainder of the text. Initially inspired by having used balsam of Peru myself after having learned it from older literature, I added what was a logical clarification to what the citations implied. I didn't have to have known this, I could have deduced it. However, it may not occur to some readers, such as yourself, that balsam of Peru can also be used for bonding lenses and other optical elements made out of glass to each other. I hope that with some clarifications, those statements became obvious to you too. It is worth including them for those readers that may not imagine those other obvious and useful uses. Wikipedia allows deductive reasoning within an article, without labeling it as either original research or synthesis of published material. While there are cases where your kind of insistence is useful and necessary, here it is simply disruptive. [I should point out that there is no need to verify statements that are patently obvious]. 98.217.155.45 (talk) 17:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but your "logical clarification" is wrong. Just because something could be done doesn't mean that it has any utility. I see that pace your previous assertion you don't have any professional experience in optics. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry you don't have a clue about this matter. Balsam of Peru has been used in this fashion in optics since the nineteenth century, as far as I know, and it could have been earlier. Simply because my citations don't say it as explicitly as you would like, it does not preclude the use of common sense to understand it. And that is what I ended up using because of your insistence about the specificity of the citations, and that is what I called "clarification". And yes, I've used balsam of Peru and I've seen it used by others in optics before. 98.217.155.45 (talk) 20:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I stand with X. And what he wrote on your talk page and on his talk page. Please do not add Original Research to wp articles. Thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your harrasment and your edit warring. Reliable sources were provided, so there is no original research, and what they implied was added using basic logic and common sense and, not by combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion, so there is no synthesis of published material. As it was indicated to you before, Wikipedia allows deductive reasoning within an article, without labeling it as either original research or synthesis of published material. The main point here is that there is no need to verify statements that are patently obvious. With your pedantry, you are being disruptive and, with your threats, harassing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's harrasment and edit warring policy by repeatedly overriding contributions, as you did at Balsam of Peru, you may be blocked from editing. 98.217.155.45 (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

Hello Epeefleche, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015. Happy editing, JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Dates

Please not apply American month day year format to articles related to Australia, as you did at 2014 Sydney hostage crisis. Australia uses day month year format, and WP:MOSDATE quite clearly says to use the applicable date format for articles directly relevant to a particular country. Additionally, description of a person by another person as a "terrorist" does not constitute a motive, even if the motive was terrorism. Consequently, a number of your edits have been reverted.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for hitting the wrong date format button. The Prime Minister's indication that the killer was a terrorist does seem to me to be an attribution of motive for the act. --Epeefleche (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow. I didn't make the connection that it was actually you that botched the dates causing the confusion with the intervening edits in the first place. So ultimately, it's your own fault that the statement about Abbott was inadvertently removed from the main text. Apology accepted. Of course, asserting Abbott's statement that the killed was a "terrorist" in the motive parameter of the infobox absolutely is "an attribution of motive for the act", but Abbott is not qualified to make that assessment for the purposes of the article here per WP:LABEL.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused. Your deletion of RS material is the fault of an unrelated date change? I made a mistaken date change. But surely your deletion of RS-supported material was your mistake. And actually, as to who is "qualified" to term a person a terrorist, I expect the leader of the country in question is better situated than you or I or talking heads, as to events within his country. And who in the world -- other than RSs (which have done the same) -- do you think is "qualified"? The head of the police, or his top psychologist ... both of which ultimately report indirectly to the Prime Minister? Epeefleche (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

After fixing the incorrect date formatting, I inadvertently didn't restore some of the material (though not all of the extraneous material about Monis was necessary) because I had to get ready to go out. No one was prevented from patching in the other information, and it wasn't a grand conspiracy. It would indeed have been much simpler if the false attribution of motive hadn't been intermingled with the botched dates, and I'm not claiming you did so maliciously. It just didn't help.

I'm a little surprised that you need to ask what might constitute an 'expert' in regard to terrorism. Abbott's statement was not based on advice of experts but was something he offered off the cuff in a news interview while the event was still unfolding. Experts have said that the perpetrator's actions were like those of a 'lone wolf', but that it "was not about religion and neither was it a terrorist attack".[7]--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

We all make mistakes. We don't all say, however: "It's your fault I made a mistake -- because you made a mistake first." Nor is that an accurate statement. As to your assertion that Abbot's statement was not based on advice on experts -- you are spouting what is at best OR (and at worst, something much worse). You have no way of knowing. While at the same time you have reason to expect that the head of government is well informed by those reporting to him as to the thinking of the experts under him on the most important event of his month. It's not good form to assert what his statement was based on -- when you are making that up, and don't have any support for that statement other than your raw conjecture. One last point -- please don't close discussions, or make moves that are the subject of !votes, where you are an involved party ... it is better form, as with AfDs and other !votes, to let an uninvolved party close the discussion or make the move the move. Thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 04:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't really care that your invented quote isn't an accurate statement.

I have already provided you with a source indicating that the event has not been considered a 'terrorist attack' by experts in the field. Abbott's statement was made during the event, before there could possibly be any final determination on the individual's motives, and those motives were subsequently given by experts as something other than terrorism.

I have not recently closed any discussions. I did recently rename an unrelated article to fix capitalisation in the title.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Abbott called him a terrorist subsequent to the event. Epeefleche (talk) 05:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It's possible that Abbott also called him a terrorist subsequent to the event. It wasn't the source I had in mind. In any case, Abbott says a lot of things, and his comments were not of a technical nature suitable for calling the event 'terrorism' within the confines of WP:LABEL.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It's more than possible. It's quite clearly the case -- check the Financial Times article, among others. In fact, what's possible is that he held off doing so until after the event. As far as your dismissive comments regarding what the head of state of Australia says, that your POV and OR, and your "not of a technical nature suitable for ... wp:label is just your made-up statement supporting your POV, much like your over-statements flagged above, that you submit as truisms when they're nothing of the sort. And on the 2014 Sydney hostage crisis page you took action as editors -- including you -- were !voting, which is not best practices ... you should let others who are uninvolved do the honors. Epeefleche (talk) 05:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Tony Abbott says a lot of things (occasionally some of them are even true). But more broadly, when politicians make such announcements to the general public, they are in laymans terms and don't constitute professional expert opinion. Such statements don't meet the threshold for WP:LABEL. I don't really care if you don't accept that, because I'm not the only editor of the article.

As to your other objection, I took action only after there was clear majority support for not calling the event 'terrorism' unless/until available from reliable sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You say lots of things. But saying, dismissively, "Prime Minister X says lots of things" is just editor OR. The PM is informed by experts. And by his police authorities. You really would fashion better arguments if you didn't state your POV as truisms. As to you taking action in an ongoing discussion -- one in which you !voted (and yes, accidentally deleted RS-supported material leaning the other way) -- as I said, that's not cricket. You are involved. The conversation is ongoing. New facts can come to light. New editors can add their views. It is simply not appropriate for you as an involved editor to weigh consensus (not just !vote-count), and take action. The same as it would not be appropriate for you to do that at an AfD where you yourself !voted. However clear you believe, despite your clear COI, the objective consensus is. Epeefleche (talk) 06:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It's all well and good that 'new facts come to light'. But that does not justify 'guessing' that it's 'terrorism' and then. I removed the terrorism template because it was not (and still isn't) supported by reliable sources. If/when that occurs, the template may be added. And tabloids and opinion pieces do not constitute 'reliable sources' for such bold claims.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You were guessing and engaging in OR, as discussed above. The discussion was an ongoing discussion. It had not ended. You were an involved editor; having !voted. It's not your place to, with a COI like that, short-circuit an ongoing conversation by acting on what you personally view as a consensus-in-the-middle-of-an-ongoing-discussion. Where not all editors have !voted. What is it about COI that you don't understand here? If you are really of the continued view that you, !voting in an ongoing discussion, have the right to cut it short and act on your view, rather then let an uninvolved editor close it after the discussion has run its course, then we should move this discussion elsewhere so other editors can weigh in. Epeefleche (talk) 06:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and I removed the template because there was no basis for it being there. That is the case even if there had not been the 'votes', which clearly indicated in favour of removing the template anyway. The article is not finished, and my removal of the template at a time it shouldn't have been there does not preclude future use of the template.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

This has nothing do do with crystal ball. Have you read that? Anyway, this has to do with you, an editor who has !voted, and has a COI, closing an ongoing discussion. If you think that is appropriate behavior on your part, and would exercise it again, we should bring this to the appropriate page for input from other editors. Epeefleche (talk) 07:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't close the discussion. Editors are still free to indicate whether the feel the template should be included. I am, however, closing this discussion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You took action, on the very item being discussed. While the discussion was still ongoing. While you had !voted and had a COI. What's next -- are you going to !vote on an AfD and delete the article yourself, mid-discussion? You don't understand the problem with that? --Epeefleche (talk) 18:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Please take a look at the article Carolina Neurath. Any help is welcomed. :) Merry Christmas to you.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Please take another look at the article. I think I have made some mistake with the dates at the references. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure. And if you have any improvements for my article at DYK as well, that would be great. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas!!
	Hello, I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!    –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 00:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, best wishes for a happy holiday season ...

		Happy Holiday Cheer!
		Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys! Hafspajen (talk) 01:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)