Open main menu
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 10

Contents

New EMDrive paper

There is a new EMDrive paper, which you may wish to add to the Emdrive article: http://file.scirp.org/Html/74049_74049.htm I am not going to add it, because I have been discouraged from further editing by all the events, which occurred when I last did it. Such unproductive waste of time was not good for me. I do not want to be involved in something like that again. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for bringing it to my attention. InsertCleverPhraseHere 18:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately I don't think it can be used. The publisher of the journal this article comes from (Scientific Research Publishing) is a predatory open access publisher. This ends up poisoning the well for articles that get published there and these sources are generally not allowed in fringe articles. InsertCleverPhraseHere 03:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Keg-tossing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Strongman. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what article you are referring to. But if it has to do with Alkaline diet, I am most definitely not edit warring, having not even made a revert on the page. In any case, I already posted to RSN and on the talk page about the issues. InsertCleverPhraseHere 03:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

20 March 2017 review of submission by bsmith821

this list is large - 25 entries - because of the large number of scientists working on Cold Fusion Theory all over the world. Please allow me to restore this as I believe it is important in 2017, to document the scope of the efforts to understand the physics of this "now repeatable" phenomenon.

BSmith821 (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Our Canadian science community is fully committed to LENR and LENR+ these two reports from Atomic Energy Canada Defence Department Research of Military

show the level of committment : https://1drv.ms/f/s!ArHNcNHy9UNJjcsoOHJ_iz8ObVRgpA please call me 250-598-6692

BSmith821 (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@BSmith821 A full list of theories seems excessive to me. Start a discussion about the addition on the talk page, if no one else objects, I guess it will be fine. InsertCleverPhraseHere 20:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

  Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive339#User:Insertcleverphrasehere_reported_by_User:Doc_James_.28Result:_User_warned.29 regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring warning

  Administrator note: Hi. It's time to stop editing the article for a while, since every one of your edits is being reverted, thereby resulting in an edit war. Please use the article talk page, instead. And keep in mind that, on Wikipedia, medical orthodoxy is at the basis of the reliable medical sources guidelines—the sooner you come to terms with that, the better. (Yes, even if you are absolutely certain that it is you who are at the forefront of the science and it is they who have yet to catch up. Even then.) Thanks. El_C 09:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@El_C I honestly couldn't care less about the topic actually. What I am seeing though is a lack of regard for wikipedia policy here. The change in question that he reported me for, removing 'false' from the lede a second time, was a procedural edit. The addition of 'false' to the lede three weeks ago by JzG sparked an edit war and back and forth for the last few weeks and has not resulted in consensus for the change after a lengthy discussion on the talk page. I have tried compromise wording, and was reverted. Doesn't WP:NOCONSENSUS advise that we should revert to the wording used before the bold edit? InsertCleverPhraseHere 10:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Except, if everyone is reverting every edit you make, there's not much you can do. Use the talk page and try to invoke your interpretation of policy there. Maybe list an RFC and get a wider audience involved. But, ultimately, you can't win against medical orthodoxy on Wikipedia, best resign yourself to that fact. Your only hope is to wait until the thing you are advancing becomes orthodoxy itself. That's just the reality of medical articles on Wikipedia—which do have to contend with a lot of pseudoscience on the other hand. Unless you are able to produce MEDRS-quality sources, if I were you I would just move on. . El_C 10:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
El_C I actually completely restructured the lede and did some other edits in the body that haven't been reverted, so it isn't quite as hostile as you make out. But in any case, I agree with you that I should step away. I don't care about this article's topic at all (having never heard about it until yesterday) but it is very annoying to see wikipedia policy subverted in such a blatant way. InsertCleverPhraseHere 11:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay, well that's good to learn. I've been fortunate enough to have access to medical advise and conversation with physicians who are at the forefront of the science, and I count my blessings. Because between the archaic orthodoxy and the adventurist pseudoscience there is a lot of woe. But as for Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, it is no surprise that it tends to be medically conservative rather than progressive. But the best news of the ages is that you can't stop progress: orthodoxy can delay it and pseudoscience can subvert it, but science, true science always finds a way to shine. El_C 11:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes part of the edits were completely non controversial. Hopefully we have reached a compromise. Was unaware how long the text had been present. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah no worries mate. InsertCleverPhraseHere 02:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Alkaline diet/1

Insertcleverphrasehere, I see that you have nominated this article for a community reassessment and notified a number of people about the reassessment. Please be sure to also notify the relevant WikiProjects (the ones listed on the article's talk page). Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, wikiproject alternative medicine was the only one that did not have automatic alerts. I have posted on their page. InsertCleverPhraseHere 20:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Really?

You are really that insistent on letting crank advocacy have its day in the sun that you're going to restore a talk page comment advocating a YouTube video to persuade everyone to rewrite the page to reverse the scientific consensus, Wikipedia-first? I find that very odd. Guy (Help!) 20:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm not, but archiving a newbie's comments without so much as telling them why is not how we do things around here. Edit, I see that you replied to them and removed the links, this seems like a far more appropriate response to bsmith821's post than simply deleting it without any explanation. InsertCleverPhraseHere 20:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, here's where we differ. I consider it entirely appropriate to discuss this with the user on his talk page (which I am doing, and he seems to be listening), but the talk page of an article under sanctions and known to be watched by a coterie of cranks is not really a good venue. Maybe you're not aware of the two arbitration cases and the long-term POV-pushing by cold fusionists? I remember them rather well, hence my desire to avoid re-igniting that particular dumpster fire. Guy (Help!) 09:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@Guy I am glad to hear that you are speaking with them on their talk page (I was not aware). Our cold fusion article really is missing a lot of information about research in the late 2000s and 2010s, and could benefit from some fresh faces (so long as those users strictly conform to the policies on reliable sources and NPOV). It is difficult for people with that kind of knowledge to jump into wikipedia editing on a battleground article like Cold fusion without stepping into a bear trap, not knowing enough about how the wiki works to keep themselves in check and getting sanctioned in the process. I agree that it is a potential issue that a bunch of cranks could show up on the talk page and start commenting like crazy without regard for policy, But i think it is equally important that we keep from destroying potentially useful editors by cracking down on them too hard right at the start (i.e. biting the newbies). I think that the Cold fusion article is a prime example of an article that has suffered from a lack of updates due to those that are in the know about developments (many of which are cranks, but some of which could be very useful editors) being too afraid or too intimidated to attempt to even bother trying to edit the article.
Myself for example. I was topic banned from cold fusion in my first few months here, and it wasn't until a year or so of editing elsewhere, of learning wikipedia's policies, and of learning to keep my own personal views in check through the lens of policy that I managed to become a halfway decent and useful editor around here. Even after all of that, I am afraid to edit on the Cold fusion article, even though I know of many reliable sources that could greatly improve the article, for fear of a dogpile like the one that occurred at AN/I when I was topic banned. This lack of participation from the very people that are most informed about the topic is why the article has not improved and is barely edited, despite quite a lot of ongoing research and development in the field, and numerous peer-reviewed publications each year. InsertCleverPhraseHere 09:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Insertcleverphrasehere/Widom-Larsden theory

 

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Insertcleverphrasehere/Widom-Larsden theory, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

  • It is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. (See section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 2607:FB90:6628:54BC:793A:1192:C45D:6572 (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Its a bit odd that an IP decided to stop by and co-nominate a userpage that that I requested for deletion myself... What is going on here? InsertCleverPhraseHere 01:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glass battery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Princeton. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi, have you ever thought about filing an RfA? I frequently find myself sinking under the weight of articles arriving at CAT:CSD and additional pairs of hands would be most welcome. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie33 I have thought about it, yes. I recently went to the candidate poll, which didn't go well. Particularly I am concerned that I was topic banned when I was new to wikipedia (though I learned a lot from the experience, and din't really become a wikipedian until afterwards). I also edit a lot on contentious topics, RF resonant cavity thruster for example, which I fear would hurt me quite a bit. As a result, I have made some enemies in these areas for defending the 'wrong' viewpoints, based on the sources as I see it. While I would love to help, very much so, I fear that I would have 5-10 automatic oppose votes lined up against me before anything starts. Do you think I am ready? or should I wait another 6-12 months? InsertCleverPhraseHere
So you did. That poll doesn't look very representative and quite negative, I would have given you closer to 7 myself. None of the feedback save one person (and then only vaguely) tells you what you might do to improve your chances. The principal problem is distancing yourself enough from that Cold Fusion ban, which I think was a bit overhanded on a new user and expired without ever reaching any point of sanctions. People who oppose because they got caught in a content dispute (and no other more substantial reason) tend to get short shrift at RfA, in my view. I would say carry on what you're doing, and I'll have another look in a few months. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the visit, glad to see that someone has noticed my work. A few more months seems right. InsertCleverPhraseHere

───────────────────────── @Ritchie333 after an incident at 3RR today where we couldn't find an admin, It has become apparent that there are few to no admins that are active during the periods when I am generally most active (primarily because I live in New Zealand and so have an opposite time schedule to most people in Europe/America). I was thinking about giving up on going after admin-ship, but this incident has strengthened my resolve. I would like to discuss how we can proceed, as I think I am ready now. InsertCleverPhraseHere 06:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think things have gone downhill a bit as I have seen you get tangled up in other disputes. My advice would be to wait 3 - 6 months with no drama at all, no warnings about edit warring, no content disputes, nothing, then file a poll at WP:ORCP. If you file now, I don't think you'll be successful because of the issues I just mentioned. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, I think that 6 months without getting tangled in any disputes at all is a bit unrealistic for someone who edits fringe and controversial articles, but I'll try my best. Thanks for stopping by anyway. InsertCleverPhraseHere 04:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

PJW

I just wanted to say thank you for your perseverance in restoring an article on PJW. Frankly it was utterly risible that an article on him had been effectively banned by the powers at be of this site; political bias is what will do more harm to Wikipedia than anything. Aetheling1125 20:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes there are some issues with the fact that naturally wikipedia editors will often write more about what they care about and don't support articles about people they disagree with as much. I think the main problem with this particular article is that no one had dug out the sources needed to establish notability. Also, the Malmo sources contributed highly to improving notability beyond reasonable doubt, and those sources were published only early this year. InsertCleverPhraseHere 00:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

About becoming an administrator

 
Wikipedia needs you! Take the poll.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia so far; they are very much appreciated. Your experience and tenure have been an asset to the project.

Have you ever thought of becoming an administrator? It can be enjoyable, challenging, and a great way to help Wikipedia.

If you would like to find out about your chances of a successful RfA, please visit:

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

Thank you!

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

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

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

See also:

Rollback granted

Hi Insertcleverphrasehere. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Insertcleverphrasehere. 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:

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcoming

Please do not welcome new users who have not yet edited or who have not made a substantial first contribution such as a complete and acceptable new article. Encouragement can be misunderstood. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung กุดผึ้ง: I would disagree with that, somewhat. Most of our welcome messages (at least, the ones used by Twinkle) have links to pages that can be beneficial to read before attempting to create an article or making some kinds of edits (ex. adding a small piece of content without citing a reliable source). Generally, I would not welcome a user who has not made any edits anywhere except in the case of an WP:ACC welcome, which, for obvious reasons, should only be done by a user who has access to the ACC tool, preferably the user who created the account. I use User:Gestrid/Accwelcome (which I borrowed and modified from User:Mlpearc/Accwelcome) whenever I create an account for another user through ACC. Note that I have not extensively looked through Insertcleverphrasehere's user talk edit history, but the few edits I did see that welcomed users seemed to be ok. Gestrid (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
The user in question, WIkIUser225, had recently helpfully edited an article that I created, Quick, Draw!. I don't see the harm in welcoming an editor who has made a helpful edit to an article I made, nor do I think that an editor needs to have written their own article before being welcomed (The welcome message I sent contained many links that would help a new user in their efforts in making a new article). If the editor had made no edits at all, or only test edits, I might be able to understand, but I don't think this applies in this case. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 22:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Hello Insertcleverphrasehere,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 726 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.


If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Agnifera (TV Series)

Hello Insertcleverphrasehere, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Agnifera (TV Series), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not created by a banned user, or the page does not violate the user's ban. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. clpo13(talk) 17:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Or rather, there's no clear evidence that this is a blocked or banned user. Do you have any more information on this? Thanks. clpo13(talk) 17:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@clpo13 The user in question (User:Rajesh.dubey1) seemed a pretty clear sockpuppet of User:Rrajesh.shandilya (a user indef blocked for copyvio), given the very similar edits and names. I opened a sockpuppet investigation, which resulted in a confirmation and banning of the user (the closing of the sock investigation was after you declined the CSD however). I think you were correct to decline the CSD, as I should have waited until the sockpuppet investigation was complete before filing for CSD. In any case, the article in question has been worked on substantially by multiple other editors now, and no longer qualifies for CSD, so no further action is required on your part. Thanks. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 23:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Original Barnstar
Thanks for the help on the EternalRocks article. I added a bit of info to your initial edit, some more copyediting, and sourcing. That shit was a mess. Frevangelion (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


Kurosawa article you have just flagged

This article was created as a move of the material from the main article at Akira Kurosawa which I have just updated to reflect the move. You may contact me directly on my Talk page after you verify that I have fully identified the move and included the link to the new page. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Had no idea it was material split from another article, it appeared to be a new article copied from an external page (copyvio check), and I flagged it as a copyvio as a result. I didn't realise the external page was a mirror because I thought it was a new article. Apologies. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 03:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
No problems. Thanks for getting back quickly on this. JohnWickTwo (talk) 04:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Khash River

Hi bro!
Thanks for reviewing my created article. here (Water, page 40 and [https://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/333/pdf/ds333_v1.1.pdf Streamflow Characteristics of Streams in the Helmand Basin, Afghanistan, page 288]) good sources about Khash river I will add new info. But please help me bro for improving them. Thanks. --Ibrahim khashrowdi (talk) 10:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

3RR

Hey dude, just fyi, you're at 3 reverts within 24 hours on Pepe the Frog with your two reverts of kencf0618 and one revert of me. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth I'm keeping track of it, but thanks for the reminder anyway. Not intending to edit war or break 3RR (unrelated edits in any case). Do you disagree with my reversion of kencf0618's edits? — InsertCleverPhraseHere 03:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm fine with whatever you two agree with. kencf0618 (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
@kencf0618 Also please don't be offended by the reverts mate, it is all part of the process when it comes to learning what is a reliable source and what isn't. You have made very positive edits to the page as well, so I guess I am saying not to be discouraged, but try to be open and learn from it. Cheers, — InsertCleverPhraseHere 04:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
No worries. I am apt to edit boldly. Sometimes too boldly! kencf0618 (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I have no opinion, informed or otherwise, as to the quality of Kencf0618's edits- I haven't examined them closely enough. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

19:21, 13 July 2017 review of submission by DoYouEvenWikiBro

Thanks for your suggestion on how to improve the page I made on the Attagenus turcomanus. I added a reference now.

Cheers mate. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 19:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Insertcleverphrasehere, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
  • Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

  • Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
  • The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:

General project update:


If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

2017 International Championship

Thanks for the review mate. Keeping it basic for now until more information is released. Andygray110 (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah definitely. Good work mate. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 14:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Patrol of page

Hi there, I see that you patrolled the sandbox page that I created to test content before applying to the main article The Rolling Stones: Havana Moon, due to this I have moved it to my user space as I do not want it to be treated as an article itself, it was merely a sandbox. I was wondering if you could mark the actual article as 'patrolled' as it has yet to be marked as such (is in DYK section of main page at the moment) and, since I do not have the autopatrolled right, I cannot review it myself. Thanks in advance! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks like someone else got there before me.— InsertCleverPhraseHere 01:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Funny, I searched it before messaging you (and now) and the article still shows up as unreviewed when I search/filter for articles by "TheSandDoctor" that are unreviewed in the mainspace. Another indication that it has not been reviewed is the fact that it does not show up when googling the title. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I checked on my phone and it wasn't showing up, but On my desktop I managed to get it working. Done. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 05:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks so much! Feel free to review any of the other pages in that filter, if you want of course. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

History of money circulation in Azerbaijan

Hello, thank you for your attention and I'll try to improve my activity. Kheyirkhabarli1996 (talk) 07:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Moment Of Clarity

I was going to object to your moving of Moment of Clarity into draftspace, until I looked a little closer and saw the "lorem ipsum" text in the middle... Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Jacobi Bedenfield

The exact same content already exists at Draft:Jacobi Bedenfield. Do we really need it in both places? —C.Fred (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Nope... I was in the process of tagging it for G6. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 20:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
G6 is probably better than A7, at least on the first, innocent recreation. —C.Fred (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Carnide (Lisbon Metro)

Well there's not really any better source that could be used because the one I put there is from the official website. It has every information needed there so even though I understand that only one source for a page can make it a bit untrustworth, i don't really know which sources i could use other than that one.

Ligaanet (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a good source, that's why I marked it as reviewed, but articles are generally required to have more than one reference to a reliable source (even if the best source available is already included), as it helps with verification. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 20:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I understand that, I'll try to find more sources, even if they only apply to just a section of the text. I still have to add one source per connection so in the future I think there won't be any issues with lack of sources Ligaanet (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on these articles, it is appreciated. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 21:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Issues with the services tab

For some reason, the service tab on the Lisbon Subway Blue Line appear to have the terminus mixed up, instead of showing the Santa Apolónia Metro Station it shows the train station with the same name, could you look into this? As far as I remeber there's a similar problem in teh Green line where the terminus is the Cais do Sodré station (showing mistakenly the train station and not the metro one) Ligaanet (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ligaanet Unfortunately, this sort of markup stuff is not my strong suit. I'd suggest taking it up with somebody else. Maybe someone over at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trains can help? — InsertCleverPhraseHere 15:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Will try there, thanks :) Ligaanet (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Megabuilders Volley Bolts

Hi Insertcleverphrasehere, thanks for the review of the Megabuilders Volley Bolts. I have already added the country in the 1st sentence, I hope it suits the requirement. Thanks again! Rick (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Rick The city they are based in should also be added if possible. Good work expanding our library of sports articles. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 05:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@Insertcleverphrasehere, done & thanks again. Rick (talk) 07:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Thomas Goldstein (historian)

Hi, Insertcleverphrasehere. Thanks for moving the article to draft. Will work on it if I have more time. Adeuss (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi again, Insertcleverphrasehere. I've finished with the drafting, would you mind to move the article back to its main place? Any response from you will be really helpful! Adeuss (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Good work expanding the article and sourcing. I have moved it back to the article space. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 19:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Insertcleverphrasehere! Adeuss (talk) 09:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Speed Langworthy

You tagged my article, Speed Langworthy, for speedy deletion. I spent literally nine hours to write this article. Speed Langworthy is mentioned on the sheet music posted to Wikipedia by another user. Featured on Roaring Twenties among other articles.

 

Why is my article deleted for lacking notable contribution, but, oh, let's say that offensive Wikipedia articles, like Bat Pussy remain? Garfield7380 (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to ask the admin who deleted it to restore it to a draft article that you can work on. Keeping or deleting wikipedia articles is generally dependent on demonstrating notibilty by citing reliable sources. Once you have a draft of the article, message me and I will come over and help you with the sources as best I can. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 22:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@Garfield7380 The article content was restored to Draft:Speed Langworthy by the deleting admin after I requested it from them. I see that you worked on this considerably after I tagged it. I apologize for not revisiting it after tagging it, and the admin who deleted probably should have declined the CSD. I am going to restore it back to the article space now as I believe that in its current state it should not have been deleted in the first place. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 00:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Request on 15:58:24, 14 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by BeaglePower



BeaglePower (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC) The current reviewer has asked for a person with more expertise in chemistry to review: A Visual, Graphical Comparison of Acid and Base Strengths. Is the most recent message from Insertcleverphrasehere a clerical step in this process? BeaglePower (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@BeaglePower Its not so much about the chemistry, but about what makes an article topic. This isn't a topic at all, rather it is just an explanation, very essay like at that. The chemistry can be totally sound or not, but it still wont make it suitable as a wikipedia topic for an article. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 16:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Defining acid or base strength and how to compare one acid or base to another is not simple. This Wikipedia piece is meant to show that there is a way to unambiguously define Lewis acid and base strengths. To understand the definition the need for two parameters (or properties) must be clearly demonstrated. This graphical approach clearly illustrates something that many students have trouble understanding. I have taught his approach for many years in an advanced college chemistry course and have found it very helpful to students for learning the unambiguous definition of Lewis acid and Lewis base strengths. If a Wikipedia piece had been available when I first learned of this, it would have been very helpful to me as I prepared to teach this. We offered this piece in the hope that it would be useful to others trying to teach about acids and bases.

BeaglePower (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

List_of_Falcon_9 edit

FYI re [1] I think this was a move of date from March to February rather than deletion. I believe it is genuine, but we have no reliable source other than forum comment. Lacking cite, it was correct to revert it. crandles (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@crandles Thanks, it was an unexplained edit by an IP user so I wanted to make sure it was genuine and not vandalism. Thanks very much for reviewing the edit. Given the sourcing issue, I'd agree it is still better to wait for a better source before removing the entry. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 23:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Gaturro The Movie

How could you approve an article without words? Gaturro The Movie Synesthetic (talk) 02:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Because It appears from the page history that they are actively working on it, I am keeping an eye on it, and I posted a message to the page creator about it already. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 02:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
However, having checked up on it, it seems that the article was a recreation of some of the material at Gaturro (film) probably confusion about the name as the film is known by several names but no one had bothered creating a redirect for the alternative name. I have converted it to a redirect. Another user, GaturroNik, had added a redirect tag to the Gaturro (film) article, perhaps starting the whole kerfuffle. Thanks for stopping by. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 03:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Gaturro

I know, I was trying to redirect it, but I'm from wikipedia in Spanish, where I'm a auto-confirmed user, but here, then, I can not "move" the page. Could you move it?. Bye, --Tanghetto5 (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Tanghetto5, It appears that most sources in english simply call the film "Gaturro" (the WP:COMMONNAME), without the subtitle 'the movie'. However, per WP:NATURALDAB, we should choose a natural disambiguation over a parenthetical one. However, Gaturro The Movie isn't the right name either, Gaturro: The Movie appears to be the official title. I'll move it to there and redirect the others. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 21:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks --Tanghetto5 (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Traductions

Hello, I would like to ask you a question: Why can not you translate content from Spanish to English? Or is it possible and is a mistake of my computer ?. Bye --Tanghetto5 (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Translation isn't my strong suit, and I don't speak spanish very well at all, so I am not the best person to ask. Other editors will often translate articles from other languages, and I have worked with an editor on the Russian Wiki collaborating between our articles on the same topic. Google translate is generally not sufficient for translating, as it produces poor grammar and sentence structure, but it can be a start with some cleanup. What article did you have in mind? — InsertCleverPhraseHere 22:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to WP:STiki!

Hello, Insertcleverphrasehere, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Here are some pages which are a little more fun:

  • The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users!
  • Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!

We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

 

Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name.

Inaccurate diff-link

Hello. At the Edit warring complaint page I noticed that you intended to link to a talk page comment (by me) on Richardknight's talk page. I then noticed you linked to the wrong target. Under the heading:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
you added the following:
"05:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Steve Quinn attempted to engage with the editor about the issue on the talk page, unsuccessfully."

But, it seems you may have linked to the wrong page - the link goes here: [2].

My talk page comment, on their page, is here: [3]. I did leave a comment on the Draft talk page [4], but this was a general statement. Just wanted to let you know. Thanks for bringing this to the Edit Warring noticeboard.

Regards Steve Quinn (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

  Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Guizhou Institute of Technology

Guizhou Institute of Technology is no longer part of Guizhou University. This is the reference I used on my wiki page. If you still want further evidence, why don't you ask the university ?

'Guizhou Institute of Technology (GIT) is a provincial university approved by the Ministry of Education of the PRC, which is molded into a polytechnic institute focused on engineering to invigorate Guizhou Province's industry and urbanization proposed by the Guizhou Government. GIT started admitting students from 2013. currently with a scale of 9,000 full-time undergraduate students'.[1]

[1] GUIZHOU Institute of Technology (n.d) Home [Online] Available: http://eng.git.edu.cn/ (Accessed 25.07.17).

RichardKnight (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@RichardKnight. Do you have a reliable source that says this? If so the first thing that should be done is that it should be added to the Guizhou University article. Note that while we can use the above source for trivial stuff, it does not contribute toward making the topic notable for a standalone article. We need significant coverage from independent reliable sources to justify a standalone article, see rule 42. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 04:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


Baa Baa Land

Thank you for reviewing Baa Baa Land! CaseManTheSpaceman (talk) 07:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Guizhou Institute of Technology

Guizhou Institute of Technology (GIT) is no longer part of Guizhou University and putting them on the same page would be incorrect [2]. In addition to the university website reference that I have already given [1], here are a few more recent articles, connected to GIT [2][3][4][5]. It is certain, there are also more written in Chinese. I accept the original wiki page could be expanded and a logo added, that, however, might have to wait.


[1] GUIZHOU Institute of Technology (n.d) Home [Online] Available: http://eng.git.edu.cn/ (Accessed 25.07.17).

[2] Ranking Web of Universities (2017) http://www.webometrics.info/en/search/Rankings/Guizhou%20Institute%20of%20Technology (Accessed 25.7.17)

[3] Guizhou Institute of Technology (2017) https://www.natureindex.com/institution-outputs/china/guizhou-institute-of-technology/58620b41140ba00f468b4572 (25.7.17)

[4] Study on the element geochemical charactersitics of the Shazi large-sized anatase ore deposit in Qinglong, Guizhou Province (2014) https://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11631-014-0693-z?no-access=true (accessed 25.7.17)

[5] A Preliminary Study on Ore-forming Conditions and Its Model for Banqi Secondary Phosphate Deposit, Ceheng County, Guizhou Province, China (2017) http://english.gyig.cas.cn/pu/Papers_of_AMS/201605/t20160504_162727.html (accessed 25.7.17)


RichardKnight (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

[2] says nothing of the institute being split from Guizhou University, [1] is the organisation's web page itself, which is a primary source and usually these are not used as citations on a subject's article except for trivial details. Nature Index[3] literally allows paid promotion by employers. [4] doesn't seem to have nothing to do with GIT at all. [5]... so a person affiliated with GIT got an article published? so what? I've gotten articles published too, but I'm not even close to meeting the notability criteria.
To summarise. 1 is not independent, and none of the rest have significant coverage of GIT. 3 is clearly not reliable. 2 is a listicle, and no indication that it is a reliable source either. 4 and 5 have nothing to do with GIT. See Rule 42. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 10:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

NPP Barnstar

  The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
Thank you for the work that you do patrolling new pages. It is noticed and appreciated. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

ICEMSurf

Dear InsertCleverPhraseHere, I have reconfigured and added necessary references and citations to the article Draft:ICEMSurf. Also i would prefer the article to be renamed as ICEM Surf rather than ICEMSurf as in now.--Style6000 (talk) --Style6000 (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Style6000. Most of the references seem to be primary sources, or marketing materials. These sorts of references can sometimes be useful for trivial technical details, but articles should not be based off such sources in most cases, and to satisfy the notability requirement of wikipedia articles, new articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (see Rule 42). I'd say keep looking for better sources, and I'll leave this to others at Articles for Creation, though feel free to ping me if you find some good sources and I will help if I have time. I moved the draft for you to include the space. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 06:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
@Style6000. I did a quick search. Here are a few sources that would be help establish notability: [5][6][7][8]. With articles like this searching on google with the name and "review" will often dredge up good sources if the topic is notable (This topic seems to be notable). — InsertCleverPhraseHere 06:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi InsertCleverPhraseHere Thanks for your suggestions and heading correction, I have added some good amount of references from 3rd party reliable sources and web links. Hope this should be sufficient. Please revert back for any additional corrections and requirements.--Style6000 (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Style6000. I worked on the formatting of the refs and accepted it. It can now be found at ICEM Surf. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 06:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi InsertCleverPhraseHere Thanks. All done for now. You will be able to see more improvements by me and other users in coming days...:-)--Style6000 (talk) 06:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Baa Baa Land

  Hello! Your submission of Baa Baa Land at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Michael Barera (talk) 04:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Jacqui_Horswell

can you please review:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jacqui_Horswell

Tuaono marama (talk) 01:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

  DoneInsertCleverPhraseHere 02:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Margot Forde

Can you please have a look at Margot Forde. Albatross Landing (talk) 03:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure. No Problem. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 04:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing Margot Forde. And many thanks for your help with the references. Albatross Landing (talk) 06:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! VQuakr (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Thankful

Thanks for encouraging me About Amani Alaa. I wish you success — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamIRAQI (talkcontribs) 18:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help!

  The Helping Hand Barnstar
Thank you for all your help working with new users during the Women in Science workshop – it made a big difference to the day, and several participants commented on how great it was to have experienced editors around to help them. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 10:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
@Giantflightlessbirds. My pleasure. Let me know next time you have a meetup and I'll be glad to stop by if I can. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 11:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Assyrian relief

That wasn't a very good "review". You should have just restored the redirect, or merged the new content, as I and another editor spotted within an hour. Johnbod (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Can't get it right every time I suppose; I obviously forgot to check the page history. Congrats to you and PRehse. You are clearly far superior at reviewing than I. Have a cookie.
Johnbod. In all seriousness though, try to be a bit more polite when offering criticism to reviewers. I've got a pretty thick skin, but for those that don't, comments like the one above will just put other reviewers off of reviewing any but the easiest reviews, and the difficult reviews are the ones clogging the backlog. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 13:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for review

Hi Insertcleverphrasehere, thank you so much for reviewing the lage Bahawalpur church shooting and praising my efforts. Your appreciation means a lot to me. Currently I am working on Fawad Khan as I've nominated it for WP: Good Article. I would like you to read Fawad Khan and give me your feedback. Thanks Amirk94391 (talk) 10:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for stopping by. It is good to see some very well written gems popping up in the new pages feed from time to time. Keep up the good work! Unfortunately I am not particularly good at good article review personally, I skim when I read interesting material and easily miss typos and other errors when proofreading, so the better written it is, the more likely I will miss errors. Just doesn't suit my personal strengths. From a first glace though, the article seems well written and sourced, and I don't think it will have much trouble passing GA review once someone decides to take it on. Unfortunately they have a backlog at GA review, I also have an article languishing over there (Treaty of Waitangi). Sorry I can't help out in reviewing your GA, and thanks again for stopping by. — InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here) 10:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Insertcleverphrasehere/Archive 3".