User talk:BoH

Banque Havilland

Hi BoH, could you let me know why you reverted the change on the page? I am curious why you haven't explained your reasoning on the talk page of the article. A lot of what you have written has no connection to the topic which makes me wonder why you insist. JiminyCricket30 (talk) 09:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

It does have an obvious connection to the topic. Notice that you are a one-issue user, something that Banque Havilland and David Rowland (property developer) share a history of, with for instance User:Fatherhope55 cleaning up information. BoH (talk) 10:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

MHWS

I see you moved "Mean High Water Springs" to "Mean High Water Spring". Could you explain why, given that the source cited at the bottom of the page uses the more common expression, with the 's'? PeterParslow (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi BoH

Merry Christmas, as I am blocked (again) on the dutch Wikipedia, a scrap here. After my story in de Kroeg overthere, I started to fulfill the first request on my talkpage, which happened to be yours. I translated es:Blasco de Garay for you and when I wanted to save the page, it was made impossible by the "always friendly and decent" .Koen. Because I don't want my translated text to be destroyed by those blocking motherfuckers, I sent the text to Quichot (your email address doesn't work). I asked him to send it to you, and I guess he's doing that. Good luck with Wiki-NL and the Spanish sailormen and see you around, Torero 14:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Bedankt! Ik heb geen e-mail adres op WP staan, dus dat kan kloppen. Het gaat allemaal nogal stroef op NL. Al ben je natuurlijk onverbeterlijk, want ik denk dat je had kunnen aanvoelen dat bepaalde mensen je betoog slecht zouden trekken. Nou ben ik zelf niet zo fijngevoelig en ik vind dus ook dat ze zeuren, wat ik net in de Kroeg ook gemeld heb. Maar toch niet zo slim van je dat je dat niet zag aankomen. Terwijl je volgens mij toch niet dom bent. ;) Maar goed, ik zal eens kijken of ze op NL de discussie aan willen gaan en hopelijk wordt je blok opgeheven. Prettige dagen, ik ga weer aan het werk (ik zit nu aan boord), BoH 19:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Barge reference

The link you have deleted was mentioned in the article as a concrete example of an item that could only be shipped by barge; if you have a specific example of a larger single item shipped by barge, and can provide a reference for it, then by alll means include it. I chose that shipment because that's the largest item the TPOC has ever shipped, and I can document it as such; it may even be the largest item shipped via an inland waterway, save the barges themselves. Just saying "Barges ship bit things" isn't as illustrative of their capacity as concrete examples, and concrete examples must be referenced. scot 23:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Scot. I'm sorry that I thought it neccesarry to delete that reference, but 565 ton is really not that big a load for a barge. My fear is that if every port that has a record for itself is going to put a reference here we end up with hundreds, if not thousands of links. I don't know what is the heaviest loadever on a barge, but the Bullwinkle jacket of 49,375t is almost 100 higher: [1]. I hope you understand what I mean, if not, please say so. If you are interested in barges, you may find pictures I took from te launch of the base tower of the Benguela Belize compliant tower of of the Heerema barge H-851 (one of the largest in the world, if not the largest) interesting: nl:Compliant tower. BoH 23:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that far larger items have been shipped by water, the TPOC is unique in that is the furthest inland seaport in the world (the rest of the US inland waterways are either closer to the Gulf of Mexico or the Great Lakes). Also, unlike the oil platforms and other large sea based structures, the cracker fit on a standard barge, not one custom built for the purpose, and shipped through the normal locks. How about we change the text to note that the shipment from TPOC was the largest shipment from the furthest inland port, and also add a mention and a picture of the oil platform barges? Then the article will have examples of both inland and coastal use. scot 15:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, is it the furthest inland seaport in the world? Secondly, even if so, I really don't see the need to highlight TPOC in an article about barges. They are used througout the entire world, so a US bias is also not justified. By the way, what is the difference between the standard barge you are talking about and the offshore barges? Besides the size? BoH 20:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverting vessel movement web links ?

Why are you reverting my web links to marine vessel movements I'm only interested in promoting and educating the public in regards to the shipping industry. It's one thing to read about marine vessels in Wikipedia but to actually see the different types of vessels actually move in our harbors and waterways is an additional learning experience. Please stop reverting my web links that give users an additional experience of understanding how tugs, barges , and ships transit the waterways. Watermon 03:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I revert them as they are focused on a small part of worldwide shipping. If you would have made substantial contributions to WP, I might have considered them, but you only seem to want to promote your website. BoH 11:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Watermon

We must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 14:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

? You are about one year late with this welcome template. BoH 14:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the standard assume good faith template; I think it works better like this. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 14:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It's nice of you to point this out, and normally that is what I do, but I have pointed out the reasons why I didn't do this this time. By the way, I prefer to be spoken to in a personal way, not by templates. BoH 14:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Reply-to-insistence-on-real-conversation. Just kidding. I'll be sure to keep that in mind from now on. But I've been doing a lot of spam reversion, and a lot of times they honestly think that it's a valuable resource and they just don't know any better. On the other hand, yes, sometimes they're just interested in promoting their site. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 14:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha. Ok, thanks, keep up the good work. BoH 15:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Will do. By the way, if you're really interested in spam reversion, you might want to check out WikiProject Spam. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 15:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but no time. I spend most of my time writing articles on nl WP. BoH 15:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:MLDW.JPG

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:MLDW.JPG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Balder_Thunderhorse.JPG

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Balder_Thunderhorse.JPG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 08:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Balder_Holstein_Thialf.JPG

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Balder_Holstein_Thialf.JPG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 08:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Benguela_Belize_piles.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Benguela_Belize_piles.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 09:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 09:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Image:Thunder Horse.jpg

Hi. That was a stunning picture that you took and uploaded. Thanks. I was just wondering what the back-story behind its deletion is, cos all the info I have is what's in the deletion log. ("Per OTRS ticket 2008042310018407. Jimmy Chad Smith has informd us that although he took the picture, it is actually property of BP.'") It was a very good photo & it would be really nice of BP to release it into the public domain. I take it you that you work / were working for them and have tried asking for permission? RupertMillard (Talk) 15:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rupert. The photo was not taken by me. I asked Jimmy Chad Smith for permission to place it here and did receive it, after which I placed it. Apparently the rights were not his, but BP's and he asked for the image to be deleted, but I'm not sure, because I can't track the request on Commons. Regards, BoH (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheers - now I understand. Do you know how I could get in touch with him, please? RupertMillard (Talk) 17:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have is e-mail adress here, I mailed him from the ship I was on at the time. It may take a while before I return there. I believe he works for BP-US, so you may want to try there. Regards, BoH (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Oil tanker

Hi. Oil tanker is currently going through the Good article nominee process and is being energetically edited to meet the good article standards. One aspect of this, as mentioned in Wikipedia:CITE, is that it is important that "if an article already has some citations, an editor should adopt the method already in use or seek consensus before changing it."

I've gone ahead and reworked the references in the World War I section again, and hope we can proceed in a positive manner. Cheers. Haus^Talk 10:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Haus. I'll do my best, but it's a rather complicated ref-structure (I'm normally editing on .nl). I hope you can forgive my refs not being entirely correct, but can appriciate important information is being added. The reason I'm adding is that I think a lot of information is missing for the article to be GA. You probably can't read Dutch, but may get an idea of what information is still missing if you scroll through nl:Geschiedenis van de olietanker. Regards, BoH (talk) 10:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

To add; is it really necessary to have a ref after each sentence? It make reading really annoying. BoH (talk) 10:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi BoH - thanks for your prompt response. I read through translation of your History of the Oil Tanker article and it's quite nice. With respect to the oil tanker article, I'm sure you understand that I have to edit everything that's added while it's in the good-article review stage. As for the number of citations: I know that the English Wikipedia is much more picky about citations than others. The Rule of Thumb is "Not every statement in an article needs a citation, but if in doubt, provide one." Cheers. Haus^Talk 11:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I can understand that when in doubt, a citation is needed, but one at the end of a paragraph, covering that whole paragraph, seems more then enough for me. Any sensible reader will understand that when two or three pages are cited, it covers more then just one sentence, especialy when the subject stays the same. But then again, if that's the way your reading audience prefers it, I'll go ahead and do my best. BoH (talk) 11:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand from your userpage that you're a sailor as well; in that case, The Tank Ship Tromedy is a must read! Everything you always suspected class and yards of, is described by a very knowledgable man, former naval architect and tank ship owner Jack Devanney. BoH (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding computers and automation: You made some fair comments on my Talk page. Seeing as you are knowledgeable about the subject, I suggest you rewrite that paragraph, describing how modern navigation and control systems have reduced the workload. Owen× ☎ 12:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, will do. I may move it to a different section. Regards, BoH (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

NE

What does "NE" mean? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

That the name of the captain is not encyclopidical. Besides that, a ship never has just one captain. BoH (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Changes to tugboat

I'm writing because you are an active editor, and I saw your name on the Tugboat discussion page. I identified a complicated situation of copyright violation in the article, and just spent the last hour trying to undo it. I've left a detailed description of my edits -- but they were considerable, and it would be good if someone reviewed them right away. Could you at least check my reasoning, and also my rework of the intro? I was using Jane's to get some information, but it didn't cover all aspects of the topic. Thanks, Piano non troppo (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BoH. You have new messages at Tiggerjay's talk page.
Message added 22:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tiggerjay (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, BoH. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Mother Goddess

Yes, it's a rather sub-standard article. It should be re-written. However, you seem to have copied/translated and sourced your changes from elsewhere; to judge by your editing history, and the unlinked reference numbers in some of your added text, "elsewhere" probably includes nl.Wikipedia's corresponding article. You may well have written or rewritten that article too, but in any case please see WP:COPYWITHIN. Cheers, Haploidavey (talk) 08:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I quote from the link you provided: If the re-user is the sole contributor of the text at the other page, attribution is not necessary. I am the sole contributor on nl of the added part. BoH (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

What you've added might better be summarised at Great Goddess hypothesis -- that's a more appropriate target for the balanced representation of controversial scholarly views. Having all that to the forefront of Mother Goddess skews the lead. Haploidavey (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree and would have done so if I thought it would be appropriate. Normally you would be right, but in this case, the topic has become so contaminated that the article itself needs an extensive elaboration. Case in point in the comment below. BoH (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi The content on Mother Goddess as per the Indian National Museum context and image that I added is part of an Art + Feminism Wikipedia editathon. I appreciate your guidance but do you think I could add a little background on the archaeological context to lead readers to understanding the sculpture? Would appreciate if I could be given time to finish my article! Thanks and Cheers Suruchika chawla (talk) 09:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Read the article with my updates, also from Upinder Singh, and you will understand why I disregarded your addition. In short, a figurine is not automatically the mother goddess. Exactly that lack of critical judgment was lacking in the former versions. BoH (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Petroline

Hello BoH, I came across your edit to Petroline as part of the Page Curation Process, and created the article East-West Crude Oil Pipeline. Just thought I'd let you know and see if you are interested in expanding the article. To be honest, I think that the article could be renamed; the most common name I've encountered in the sources is East–West pipeline, which is in use, so East–West Pipeline (Saudi Arabia) might be better. What do you think? Mduvekot (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

There is another East-West pipeline running parallel to it, a gas line. So crude seems a useful addition and in use as well. By the way, I can't find the conversion to gas and back mentioned in the article. BoH (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I know, these things all have very similar names. The conversion is discussed on page 149: "In recent years, the 48-inch pipeline had been operating as a natural gas pipeline, but Saudi Arabia moved to convert it back to an oil pipeline." Mduvekot (talk) 00:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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

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

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

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, BoH. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Spiracle (vertebrates)

Hi - I volunteer as part of the new page patrol team, checking new articles as they are created to ensure that they are compliant with policy. One of the things we do when reviewing new pages is to put tags on them if there are areas where they require improvements. I reviewed Spiracle (vertebrates), and while it seemed to be a notable topic and worthy of inclusion, I noted that the existing references are not ideal - there are two dictionary definitions, and a text book from 1970. Ideally, we'd have a couple of more up to date anatomy textbooks to confirm the information. I'm not saying that it's so bad that the article needs to be deleted, just that having the tag on there will help other editors with an interest in this area find it and improve it - I hope that makes sense.

Another question I wanted to raise with you... While checking it for copyright violations, I came across a couple of websites that triggered COPYVIO warnings - here and here. Upon closer inspection, these pages seem to be referencing Wikipedia as a source, which would imply that the material was written here first and copied over there. That's very unusual for such a new page however, especially because it will not have been indexed yet by search engines and should not be easy to find. Since you wrote the text, can you shed any light on what these pages are for me? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 18:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

On the first remark, I disagree with references for the sake of references. Paris is the capital doesn't need a reference, that would be plain silly. Untrue statements also don't need references, they need to be removed. So references can come in where statements may not be obvious. If you think some of the statements are not that obvious, you should be able to substantiate that on the talk-page. Otherwise it is just seagull management, flying in with minimal effort and leaving a stain, in this case an annoying template. You probably disagree and really think you are contributing to a better Wikipedia, but if you know this template is on 322,753 pages, you know it has become a useless tool.

On the second question, you can see in the firts Edit summary where I have taken the text from. I split the article, because it are two distinct subjects. BoH (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Mm. OK, I confess I've had friendlier responses to my efforts. Yes, now that I have read the edit history of this new article, and the edit history of Spiracle, which is now a disambig page, I can see what you have done - that wasn't immedialtely obvious, thank you for clarifying.

Yes, I confess that believe I am contributing to make Wikipedia better. The NPP process has been accepted for years as a means of performing a form of triage on new pages as they are produced, and marking pages for improvement. You seem to be accusing me of laziness in not just fixing the problem myself; please understand that the backlog of new pages is currently hovering around the 6,000 mark, and we don't have time to polish each one ourselves. FWIW, in the last month I've reviewed over 120 pages, checking each one for copyright violations, that their referencing checks out, improving them where I can (and marking a lot for deletion because they were promotional spam). In that same time, I've written six new articles from scratch, and brought two up to GA status. So perhaps rather than haranguing me for lazily following an agreed-upon protocol, why not just go and add a more up to date reference yourself then remove the tag? (OK rant over - I was peeved at the implication of laziness.) GirthSummit _(blether) 19:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

If you want to discuss friendliness, consider the friendliness of dumping these templates (but... it is for a good cause!!!)

I'm not saying you are lazy, I'm saying the process of dumping the templates is lazy and is doing nothing in improving Wikipedia. I also know I'm talking to deaf ears, so I will leave you to it and head back to .nl. BoH (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

My ears aren't entirely deaf - I appreciate that the template does nothing to improve the look of the page, and implies a deficiency in your work, which is not ideal. Seriously though, two dictionary definitions and a textbook from 1970 - this article could do with better refs. I'm not a biologist, but if I get time later tonight I'll try to look for a more up to date ref and add it - I'm working on an article about an historic building at the moment, but when I get done with that I'll see what I can find on Google. If you have a knowledge of this subject (I have next to none, I'm a geologist by training), and can point me in the right direction, that would be appreciated. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Dammit - I'm so suggestable. Right, done it, added a recent Nature Communications paper that has a nice description of what a spiracle is in the introduction, and removed the tag.

FWIW, in my experience as a reviewer, tags do help. Most of the time when I tag an article, it's a fairly new user who has created it; perhaps 8 times out of 10, they are sufficiently invested in the article to make the necessary improvements to the page for the tag to be removed. You are right that, if the original author ignores the tag, it's not likely to be picked up any time soon; that's not typically what happens though. You seem to be a rather unusual beast - you've been contributing a long time, long enough to develop views about how things ought to work, but you do not have WP:AUTOPATROLLED rights which would allow your creations to bypass the NPP queue. I assume you know where PERM is, if you want to avoid your work being criticised by nitpickers like me? Anyway: I hope our interaction has not driven you away from the project; I also hope that you will be prepared to spend five minutes on Google looking for sources next time you create an article. :p GirthSummit _(blether) 20:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The article could indeed be expanded, but for the information it contains at the moment I think the references are sufficient. Again, if there is doubt, this should be substantiated on the talk-page. Otherwise it is just referencing for the sake of references.

Googling five minutes just for references is the worst: it means we have no idea of the relevance of the reference. Does it just mention the subject in passing, or was it a groundbreaking paper? For an example of an article where all references are the actual influential papers, see what I did here. Took a bit more than 5 minutes though.

Don't get my wrong, I do appreciate your efforts, I just think this approach leads to a false sense of security. An example is here where a reference was sufficient to revert without actually looking into the mentioned reference that stated a different number. That is why I emphasize using the talk-page to discuss doubt and not just dump templates or google for 5 minutes to find any reference. BoH (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, but I think you are confusing (or conflating?) verifiability with notability. The distinction is important. We get hundreds of new articles every day - I am completely guessing at the ratios, but I reckon that perhaps a fifth of them are commercial spam, and maybe another fifth are about non-notable subjects (mostly random people who want a page about themselves, albums made by high school bands in their garages, that sort of thing), and another fifth are about potentially notable subjects, but they are so poorly sourced that we can't verify any of the information in them.

Now, I happen to agree that the subject of your article was obviously notable: but what is obvious to us is not obvious to everyone. You think that the breathing holes in the heads of cartilaginous fish are obviously notable; someone else I was speaking to today thought that a rap album by a minor artist which had never charted anywhere or been reviewed in any RS was obviously notable; tomorrow, a guy who runs the marketing department for a new gambling app will argue that it is obviously notable. We can't have the same argument hundreds of times per day - we need an agreed-upon set of guidelines to establish notability, which give us a platform to stand upon when we say 'yes to this, but no to that' - otherwise we end up with pointless, protracted arguments, every time someone writes an article about their pet hamster.

The bare minimum, which has been established by community consensus, is that there be two independent, secondary, reliable refs about any subject - see WP:GNG. They don't have to be referenced in the article, but the refs have to exist. If the refs don't exist, we nominate for deletion (either CSD, PROD or AfD, depending on other factors); if there are refs out there, but they're not in the article, we either add them ourselves (not always a great idea, for the reasons you've outlined above), or we tag in the hope that the author is a subject-matter specialist who is able to find appropriate sources themselves. When I come across an article that I think is obviously notable, I don't believe that it's my call to decide whether or not to apply that rule - I follow the guidelines. You might think that's blind bureaucracy (and you might have a point); I prefer to think of it as impartiality.

So - I hope I have explained why I believe that the work we do in NPP is both necessary and beneficial. I agree that it's a compromise, and probably not an ideal compromise, but it's what we've got to work with at the moment - this is a collaborative project, and the current policies and guidelines were thrashed out by protracted discussion and eventual consensus. If it is imperfect, it at least allows us to stagger on and keep the wheels on the waggon.

If you would be interested in helping out with the daily flood of articles, I for one would be grateful for your assistance. Whether you do or not, please either apply for autopatrolled, or accept that your new creations might get a tag if they don't have include two reliable sources. We are doing this for the good of Wikipedia, and there is some collateral damage, but until someone comes up with a better system (and goes through months of back-and-forth discussion trying to build a consensus for it), this is what we've got. :-) GirthSummit _(blether) 21:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The use of this template to verify notability is flawed, it is using the tools meant for something else. If you doubt notability, use a template that addresses that issue, or add an invisible category, or list it on a page awaiting for the notability to be checked, or all of the above. Mixing these two results in references that might prove notability, satisfying moderator needs, but have a high chance of being useless to the reader. However, I have no illusions of changing anything here, :en is too bureaucratic. Therefore I leave you to it and head back to :nl. BoH (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Seriously? You'd prefer me to have added a notability tag to the article? The notability was not in doubt - by me, at least - what was lacking was sourcing to demonstrate that that was the case. You can't have it both ways. I very rarely add notability tags - only when I think the article should probably be deleted, but I'm not well-placed to look for sources. In this case, the problem was simply resolved by adding another ref - which took five minutes to find, five minutes that you appear to think were wasted. What is better - the article languish for 10 years with a 'better citations' tag, or that we leave it untagged and unimproved for the same period of time? I don't know about you, but if we are going to publish piss-poor articles (which we do, unfortunately), the least we can to is add a header saying 'This might be a load of bollocks'. I know that isn't the case for your article, but we have to apply the same rule to everyone. GirthSummit _(blether) 00:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

No, that is not what I'm saying. You defend your tagging by stating it is for notability purposes. However, to proof notability, you use a verifiability tag and add that somewhere randomly in the article. So what we have now is the last sentence referenced with an article in Nature that doesn't mention labyrinthodonts, amniotes and frogs. That is misuse of the convention of references and misleading for the readers. So :en has rigged up a system that basically ruins the reference system just for lack of a better system to keep out spam. By chance I quoted Peter Drucker earlier today, and although it doesn't apply directly, you can see why you should not mix two processes this way:

Routines and Exceptions

A control system can control only the regular process. It must identify genuine exceptions, but it cannot handle them. It can only make sure that they do not clog the process itself. [...]

Exceptions can never be prevented but they can be eliminated from the work process. They then can be handled separately and as exceptions. To make a control system take care of exceptions misdirects and undermines both the work process and the control system. Drucker, P.F. (1974): Management. Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices, p. 220

BoH (talk) 01:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Fair comment about the ref placement, it's not ideal, neither is having an entire article sourced only to a single off-line source printed in 1970. The paper supports many of the preceding statements in that paragraph (and the one before that), and it has the advantage of being on-line, which makes it easier for readers to access if they want to verify the information, or indeed learn more about the subject - and since the paper itself is well-referenced, it would serve as a stepping-off point for someone who might one day come along and expand the article. I'd say it's an improvement, but please by all means replace it with a better one, in a better location, if you like.GirthSummit _(blether) 12:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Spiracle (arthropods)

Hello BoH,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Spiracle (arthropods) for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer. Template:Z166

 Lefcentreright (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

It was copied from this Wikipedia, as you can read in the first Edit summary. BoH (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)