User talk:Waggie

Schott AG - Rework of intro section and your recent rollback

Hi Chrisw80 - I don't see how the reduction of content violates the neutral position directive in any way and disagree with the decision. Actually all information present in my recent edit has been there before. I just regrouped it and cut the mixture of historic and current information to streamline the intro. It would be helpful to know how you justify the rollback. On which specific findings did you base your decision? Ah and I had to reregister a neutral, personalized account since my old Account Schott got blocked due to company name restrictions on the english wikipedia. Nevertheless, I would love to get into that discussion with you, since I just cannot see a violation here on my part that would justify a rollback. I carefully read the wikipedia instructions on what to do and how to do it right. So I am really looking dorward to your response and hopefully we can work this out. Best regards, Ffedit (talk)

A barnstar for you!

Moved to userpage

Vonage

The veiled and not-so-veiled accusations and rudeness continued, an experienced editor should know better

Why did you eliminate the sourced information about the former CEO being barred from associating with brokers, and that Vonage's settlement with the IPO investors included a dismissal of all claims against Vonage? Feedback 07:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC) Hello Feedback, I removed it because press releases from an article's subject aren't generally considered reliable sources for potentially controversial information. I looked long and hard for reliable secondary sources that contained this information and didn't find it (though perhaps I missed it?), so I removed the information. If you're concerned about this removal and would like to discuss it further, I'd be happy to work with you on it, but we should probably move it to the article talk page for more discussion. Thanks for coming to discuss it with me, I hope we can come to a resolution that satisfies both of us. Chrisw80 (talk) 00:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC) The information you removed is factual information in the public record. (SEC source, Court documents). The SEC decision is not a press release; it's a public document reporting the governmental agency's decision. You will also find news coverage if you are not convinced of the SEC's reliability, but I honestly can't understand why. While I'd like to assume good faith, it seems like your edits were specifically made to remove embarrassing information. I'd like to ask you up front if any conflict of interest exists. I don't mean this to be a an accusation, but Vonage has a history of having employees and/or paid editors influence their articles, so you should understand why that risk always exists. I intend to re-add the information in the article only after hearing back from you so we can resolve this matter amicably. Feedback 07:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC) Feedback, feel free to put content back if you have reputable news coverage to support it per WP:RS. The removed content that I believe you are disputing was referenced only to a press release - so I removed it, a perfectly valid thing to do. I also removed a bunch of external links to Vonage websites that failed WP:EXT, did a variety of copyediting to make it less WP:PROMO, and removed content that said Vonage was "the "Biggest Percentage Price Gainer" of stocks on the NYSE" (because it was simply not encyclopedic, and had already been commented as such), I also fixed/expanded a few incomplete ref tags. I also offered, very politely, to discuss the matter with you at the article talk page and stated that I didn't find sources to support the content in question, but that I could have missed them in my own searches for a reliable source. So, for the question regarding potential COI, this would all be pretty bizarre behavior for a COI editor, don't you think? Out of curiosity, did you look at my contribs or try to learn anything more about me before asking that before jumping to conclusions? I made legitimate, policy based edits to the Vonage article, and gave a good edit summary explaining what I did. I edit hundreds of other articles, participate at AfC, AfD, and #wikipedia-en-help connect, I also do vandalism patrol, and help out wherever else I'm able. Your question is really not appropriate given the circumstances. If you really feel that my edits represent some sort of bizarre COI that I am not disclosing, report me at the appropriate noticeboard and we'll let the admins form their own opinions. Otherwise, I'd appreciate an apology. Chrisw80 (talk) 08:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC) Feedback, I should add that Vonage doesn't need some bizarre, subtle COI editor, they have a declared paid editor working actively on the article. Chrisw80 (talk) 09:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC) I did not take you up on your offer to move the conversation to the talk page, because I felt that it was more respectful to make the COI question on your personal page instead. Like I said above, I don't want to throw accusations about you being a paid editor, it was a genuine question since Vonage has paid editors in the article. I did go through your contributions and it did raise some red flags. Editors usually have specific interests, but you've edited unpopular articles of small companies from a wide range of different subjects (i.e. It's not like you're only editing ISP articles such as Vonage.) However, that's not conclusive in the least and that's why I didn't mention it. I am happy to take you at your word if you deny that you are paid editor or have a conflict of interest. That being said, nowhere above did you actually deny it so I feel like I have no choice but to ask you again. That you participate in other aspects of Wikipedia does not obviously remove any reason for a COI. A professional paid editor who is truly committed to remaining incognito participates in all aspects of Wikipedia and hides his COI edits under the guise of "legitimate, policy-based edits". Simply put, no paid editor is ever successful making COI edits and nothing more as those will obviously be found out. If you're not a paid editor, I definitely apologize for offending you as that was never my intention. I will however not apologize for asking a simple question in order to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you're not a paid editor or have a COI, please deny it and we can move on. But I digress. I intend to add the information, but I'm not going to get stuck in an edit war because you're confused over what occurred. The information that you removed wasn't from a press release, it was a SEC decision referenced directly from the SEC's governmental website, and you removed the source along with the information. I posted the diff above so you can better recall your own edit. You're now also asking me to find a reliable source when I already linked you above to a CNN source above. What exactly do you think is missing here? Feedback 19:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC) @Feedback: PS: Chris edits a variety of pages of small companies due to the fact that he helps at the Wikipedia IRC Help channel, and we get a lot of requests for article improvement etc. there. Thanks! FiendYT ★ 20:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC) Feedback, I have absolutely no intention of answering your question, as I do not feel that it deserves a response. Wikipedia is not an authoritarian regime where "If you have nothing to hide.." applies, you do not get to interrogate every editor of an article about COI just because an article has had COI editors in past or presently. My edits do not reflect COI editing in any respect. My extremely polite response to your initial message regarding my edits was met immediately with sideways accusations of COI editing no matter how politely you worded it. My edits do not reflect any bias for or against Vonage, they only reflect what the reliable sources say. You continue your rudeness by repeating your accusation and then by stating that you think I might start an edit war, despite my explicit suggestions that you re-add the content using a WP:RS (I have made no comments one way or the other about your CNN source). I am hardly confused about what we're talking about, how about you? To quote you: "...about the former CEO being barred from associating with brokers, and that Vonage's settlement with the IPO investors included a dismissal of all claims against Vonage?" You are expressing concern with two of my edits to this article. Again, my edits were policy based, clearly improved content, tone, and sourcing of the article, and I have explained them twice already. However, apparently I need to do so again. The first concern you stated is the content that was sourced to a press release. "...settlement included a release and dismissal of all stockholder claims against Vonage and its individual...". I replaced that with a secondary reliable source and modified the content appropriately to match the source (as Wikipedia is only here to summarize what the reliable secondary sources say about a topic). The information is still there and is not promotional or problematic in any way that I can determine. The second edit that you seem more concerned with is: "<ref>Citron could not preside over the public stock offering, because he was "barred from association with any broker or dealer" of stocks by.." which was an incorrectly labelled and formatted reference, not actual content in the article. As such, I removed it entirely as it would be WP:OR (the SEC is a primary source). There was already a second reliable source ref to support the content that is there already, as well, which I clearly left intact. I also note that you fail to address all the WP:PROMO content I removed from/revised in the article. So, let me also understand this, you consider thousands of hours of my work helping new editors and cleaning up crappy articles to be red flags for a COI editor? Someone would really spend thousands of hours editing constructively in order to "hide" a few purely constructive edits to one article that they have a conflict of interest with? If only our COI editors were actually like this, so many Wikipedia articles would be in a lot better shape. I'll say it again, if you really think I'm a COI editor, take it to the COI noticeboard and we'll hash it out there. If you can't be bothered to apologize for your rudeness, please do not post on my talk page again. I will not respond to any further rudeness from you here. If you choose to do the right thing and apologize to me, I'd be happy to explain any of the other ~3000 edits I've made anywhere else on Wikipedia, just don't accompany them with more absurd accusations of paid editing. Chrisw80 (talk) 01:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC) If that will be your final reply, this will be mine. You state that I "can't be bothered to apologize for your rudeness" despite the fact I apologized above as I never meant for you to take offense. You also said I'm being rude no matter how polite I word it which is a rather contradictory position to take. My initial question about whether or not you had a COI was not an accusation. I had no opinion on whether or not you had a conflict of interest, I only asked because of the article's history points to the fact that Vonage's paid editors are the only ones who have bothered to give the article the time of day. If I'm not mistaken, you took personal offense because you feel your contributions are so positive and constructive, that any allegation of a conflict of interest is unfounded and a personal slight. But you're ignoring the fact that most editors who choose to edit articles they have conflicts of interest with are still editing with the purpose of improving them. Vonage's own CEO could remove promotional material for the betterment of the article. Not all COI edits have to be damaging. The implication that you're not being a single-purpose account automatically disqualifies you from having a conflict of interest is also not a sound argument. Many volunteers have conflicts of interests, and they either disclose them or stay away from the articles. Between my workplace, my family and my alma mater, I could name at least a dozen potential articles where I would have a conflict of interest if I chose to edit them. With respect to paid editing, the implication that a paid editor wouldn't waste their time making constructive edits for free elsewhere is a self-defeating argument. If you and I aren't paid editors, aren't we choosing to edit for free because we enjoy it? Most paid editors are in fact regular volunteers who edit as a hobby like everyone else, and later found out they could monetize that hobby. It is your prerogative to choose to disclose whether or not you have a COI. It is also my prerogative to be cautious in light of the circumstances. In my 10 years of editing on the encyclopedia I have never encountered someone acting so defensive over a suggestion that he had a COI without it being true. You said you removed the two pieces of information in the article because you didn't trust the sources, but instead of replacing the sources with news coverage (which I easily found just by copy/pasting the statements into Google), you chose to remove them entirely. Whether or not you have a COI, I'm choosing to assume that was done in good faith. Nevertheless I will re-add these statements along with multiple third-party sources in order to avoid someone reverting it without good cause. I just hope that no one asks for their money back after I do. Feedback 07:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Picture of the Cathedral

Thank You for adding the image of the cathedral. I've been trying to get someone to send me a picture so I could add it to the Diocese and Cathedral wiki pages. Roberto221 (talk) 08:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Roberto221, you're welcome! I took two photos that came out pretty good. Here is another one I took at the same time from a different angle. If you need further photos of things in Sonoma County for Wiki purposes, let me know and I'll try to oblige. Chrisw80 (talk) 09:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:CinemaScope

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:CinemaScope. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Xavient Information Systems

Hello:

Checking in on AfC: Draft:Xavient Information Systems as there is new material for Xavient that may meet Wikipedia's notability standards and result in Xavient being able to resubmit and receive approval for a page.

Xavient was recently featured in the Fairfax Times article "Securing the future" (Link here: http://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/securing-the-future/article_054d2ab4-1888-11e6-8928-cf42bbc35693.html) as well as in a San Fernando Valley Business (SFVB) Journal article, which is available in PDF format. (The SFVB Journal is owned by California Business Journals, along with the Los Angeles Business Journal, Orange County Business Journal and San Diego Business Journal.) The company is expecting a piece in the Pacific Coast Business Times later this month, as well.

Additionally, Xavient was awarded as a finalist in three categories for the 11th Annual 2016 IT World Awards, winning Gold for Best IT Company of the Year (Services), Silver for IT Project of the Year, and Bronze for Deployments and Case Studies. (Link here: http://www.networkproductsguide.com/world/)

Do these constitute notability for Xavient? If not, what additional materials or sources from third party groups are required?

CommsPro123 (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

D-Link page

Hi, Thanks for your input. I believe the last entry I added it not promotional but stating facts with reference. I took some reference from other companies in the industry such as Netgear and Linksys. Or are all their pages violating Wikipedia rules? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookiemonster1979 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Cookiemonster1979, please our page on reliable sources so that you can understand what constitutes a reliable source. Some of what you added was OK, but most wasn't. Wikipedia pages should be a summary of what secondary, reliable sources say about a topic. Essentially for biographies and company articles, if content is non-trivial, it must be covered by a reliable, secondary source to be included in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a means for company promotion, simply a means to provide a summary of notable information about a topic. Thanks for your time. If you'd like to discuss it further, let's talk about it on the article talk page. I see that Maproom has removed your edits as well, so they should probably be included in this discussion and the article talk page would be the correct venue in that case if you have further concerns. Best wishes! Chrisw80 (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciated the information you are providing to a newbie like myself. However, it seems you have removed information and images that were already there before any of my contribution. Can you let me know why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookiemonster1979 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:European Graduate School

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:European Graduate School. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

SEA-ME-WE 5

I hope you haven't trashed my last hour of work. I am the source... I represent the SEA-ME-WE 5 Consortium! I mentioned that in my update notes, which apparently went unnoticed. So, the source is the SEA-ME-WE 5 Consortium to which there is no "link". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcoughing (talk • contribs) 06:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Xcoughing, your edit summary did not go unnoticed. Wikipedia requires that all articles have their content sourced to independent and reliable sources. You, as a representative of the Consortium, are not considered independent or reliable per our guidelines. Please see our page regarding Reliable Sources here. Welcome to Wikipedia, I'm sorry that your initial endeavours here have not gone as well as you might have hoped. You'll notice at SEA-ME-WE_4, there is a variety of reputable news sources in the references section. Chrisw80 (talk) 07:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Avedis Zildjian Company

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Avedis Zildjian Company. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:John Stuart Mill

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John Stuart Mill. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Moved to userpage

Brock turner

I undid the edits of someone who on the talk page said that the article treats the subject as if he was guilty. In fact, that ship has sailed- he was tried, and found guilty. If you think otherwise, explain yourself on the talk page. Epson Salts (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alfred North Whitehead

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alfred North Whitehead. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey Waggie Thanks for the help with the SPI thing. I know you were voluntold but I appreciate it none the less :D --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 15:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hunter Valley wine

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hunter Valley wine. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Assurant

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Assurant. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Accompong

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Accompong. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Philippines v. China

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Philippines v. China. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Truck

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Truck. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:S&P 500 Index

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:S&P 500 Index. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox organization

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox organization. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I Don't Understand.

Dear Waggie, I’m very new to Wikipedia, so please bear with me. I just don’t understand the problem, the sources I used are virtually the only available sources, other than the games. The sources are quite accurate, as well. They simply state what the ingame lore says. Or maybe I’m completely missing the mark, and I’m doing something else completely wrong. Help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beebceeper (talk • contribs) 08:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Beebceeper, thanks for your message. I'm sorry your first edits to Wikipedia aren't going well. You're removing a legitimate redirect and creating an article based on sources that aren't reliable per our guidelines. Wikipedia needs reliable sources to verify content in an article. Websites that have user-contributed content (such as Wikipedia and other wikis) are explicitly not reliable sources. I hope this helps clarify. If not, please reply here and I will try to clarify further. I've also placed a welcome message on your talk page with a series of links to our guidelines and policies to hopefully help improve your future experience here, to be honest I should have posted that earlier, my apologies. Thanks for your efforts and again, I'm sorry it hasn't gone as well as you would have liked. Best wishes! Waggie (talk) 08:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Waggie,

I am new here. New as a contributor to be precise. I edited a page on Orya Maqbool Jan. An edit that you deleted citing " non-neutrality". Not sure if this should be a new conversation or there is some way to reply to the message you sent me on this subject.

If you go through his lectures, you would appreciate that it would be difficult to be neutral on his views. I did state facts (as in his actual statements) and did not use any derogatory language. If just quoting the gentleman and pointing out inconsistencies constitutes "non-neutrality" then I submit I am guilty as charged. But thats all that I did. And the guy is dangerously unhinged. I do hope you will reconsider.

Cheers, Shaswat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.251.143.74 (talk) 09:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Dissapointed that an edit of mine on Orya Maqbool Jan's page was removed citing "non-neutrality"

Hi Waggie,

I am new here. New as a contributor to be precise. I edited a page on Orya Maqbool Jan. An edit that you deleted citing " non-neutrality". Not sure if this should be a new conversation or there is some way to reply to the message you sent me on this subject.

If you go through his lectures, you would appreciate that it would be difficult to be neutral on his views. I did state facts (as in his actual statements) and did not use any derogatory language. If just quoting the gentleman and pointing out inconsistencies constitutes "non-neutrality" then I submit I am guilty as charged. But thats all that I did. And the guy is dangerously unhinged. I do hope you will reconsider.

Cheers, Shaswat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.251.143.74 (talk) 09:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Account creator granted

After reviewing your request for the "accountcreator" permission, I have enabled the flag on your account. Keep in mind these things:

• The account creator right removes the limit on the maximum number of new accounts that can be created in a 24-hour period.
• The account creator right is not a status symbol. If it remains unused, it is likely to be removed. Abuse of the account creator right will result in its removal by an administrator.

If you no longer require the right, let me know, or ask any other administrator. Drop a note if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of the account creator right. Happy editing! — xaosflux ^Talk 18:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Thanks, I will remember this. Best wishes! Waggie (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of European countries by average wage

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of European countries by average wage. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

SPI help barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for you help cleaning up from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asarudeenm91! I really appreciate it. Cheers, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ethereum

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ethereum. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Onnit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Onnit. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gawker Media

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gawker Media. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Haiti–United States relations

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Haiti–United States relations. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon at Sonoma State University

SSU is holding an edit-a-thon on the afternoon of November 17th. If you'd like more information, or to participate, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Sonoma County/Sonoma State University and/or the Facebook event page that is listed there. And if neither of those pages addresses all of your questions, please send me a note. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

ACC

Hello Waggie, You have not logged in to the ACC interface, you're on the 45 day inactive list. If you're not going to be active your account will be suspended, otherwise please login to the interface which will automatically remove you account from the list. If you have any questions, see IRC or my talk page. Cheers, - Mlpearc (open channel) 01:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Clinton Foundation

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Clinton Foundation. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:South West Trains

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:South West Trains. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help

Hi Waggie,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:MPay

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:MPay. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Waggie. 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)

The Gadget Flow

Chris, can you weigh in on the Keep side on this page you voted to Keep on back in May? Since then RS coverage has tripled.JanisWilloughby (talk) 13:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Probably not!

Hello. You're probably right. I was trying to tidy the page up by adding an external link to The Ugly House but probably got tangled up and mistook internal references (there isn't a Wikipedia page on The Ugly House) for external ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.33.65 (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Indian 500 and 1000 rupee note demonetisation

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Indian 500 and 1000 rupee note demonetisation. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

	The 12 Days of Wikipedia On the 12th day of Christmas Jimbo sent to me 12 BLPs 11 RFAs 10 New Users 9 Barn Stars 8 Admins Blocking 7 Socks Socking 6 Clerks Clerking 5. Check Users Checking 4 Over Sighters Hiding 3 GAs 2. Did You Knows and an ARB in a pear tree. -May your holiday season be filled with joy, laughter and good health. --Cameron11598

Please comment on Talk:Sarah Jane Brown

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sarah Jane Brown. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Edited The Article As Mentioned

Thanks Sir, I have edited the draft article (Real Estate Management Institute) as you have mentioned and i will place the citation as you highlighted. Please let us know further process.

Thanks You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jitendershaw31 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Origin of the Romanians

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Origin of the Romanians. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for the kind assistance. K.B. Dessai 18:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Poland

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Poland. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hello Waggie. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog (around 15,000 pages) down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 18:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:British Empire

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:British Empire. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Special Thank You

Hi @Waggie: thank you for your help in forming my signature! I appreciate it :) ActiveListener95|(˥ǝʇs Ɔɥɐʇ) 05:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello Waggie,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 823 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tomas Gorny

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tomas Gorny. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Class455. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, MonkeyHost, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 21:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Class455 Was there something wrong with my curation of the article? I correctly tagged it for deletion, especially since i had recently moved the same article to draftspace not too much earlier. Also, not providing an explanation of why you unreviewed it is a little odd. Waggie (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Oops, it was a misclick. I re-marked the page straight away after it happened. I was using my phone at the time. I never even knew a message had been posted here as well, otherwise I would have reverted it. Ignore it. Sorry for the inconvenience. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 22:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

No worries, Class455. It happens! Best wishes and happy curating! Waggie (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nissan Caravan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nissan Caravan. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello Waggie,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 823 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Neoliberalism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Neoliberalism. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

22:43:36, 6 March 2017 review of submission by Kham88

• Kham88 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Media and LGBTQ Youth of Colour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Waggie. I just wanted to get some feedback for the Media and LGBTQ Youth of Colour article review as I imagined there were some neutrality issues in how it was written. I was just curious what parts of the article needed to be worked on, and how it can be fixed.

Thank you! Kham88 (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tourism in Georgia (country)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tourism in Georgia (country). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Waggie. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:American Automobile Association

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:American Automobile Association. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Draft talk:High Performance Alloys, Inc.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Draft talk:High Performance Alloys, Inc.. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tullock's spike

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tullock's spike. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:American Pekin

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:American Pekin. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of manufacturers by motor vehicle production

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of manufacturers by motor vehicle production. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lagardère Sports and Entertainment

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lagardère Sports and Entertainment. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Theater of All Possibilities

Hi Waggie

re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theater_of_All_Possibilities

I've added a reference in the New York Times to the opening sentence, as well as another to a book on Biosphere 2. Do you feel this is sufficient now to be able to remove the tag?

Thanks Aarkangel (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Aarkangel, hi there, thanks for your message. To answer your question, no, because there's still three paragraphs of content that isn't sourced. Sorry! Waggie (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Avakin life

Hello Waggie. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Avakin life, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 cannot be applied to software. Thank you. SoWhy 18:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Money.Net

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Money.Net. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Why you delete my edit

Why did you delete my edit?!!?

"It's biggest achievement in history has been winning ice cream cup" Seriously? Waggie (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

https://www.sportskeeda.com/cricket/bangaldesh-wins-za-n-zee-ice-cream-series pls check. This tournament was called ice cream cup!

Ok, then please cite that source in your edit. Thank you. Waggie (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but Oshwah beat me to it...

Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Mortimer Common and MFM

regarding the other editor, she has removed links to a village music club, and a voluntary organisation that informs the village what is going on, whilst leaving the cricket club alone. this is double standards and non value add in anyone's book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njthec (talk • contribs) 18:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Njthec, thanks for your post on my talk page! I only see "Mortimer Village Website" and "Royal Berkshire History: Stratfield Mortimer", both which do seem to add encyclopedic value. Best wishes! Waggie (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

because someone else -Christine someone it seems- meanwhile decided to remove the village partnership on the wrong understanding they were commercial/soap box and decided that the cricket club better go too. I live in the village I know the facts. presumably you don't live here and are just quoting a rule book. I didn't realise the censorship level here in the name of rules - wrongly applied.