Open main menu
This is Neonorange's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Neonorange.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4

Wil WaluchowEdit

Thank you for adding the minimum necessary references for my Wil Waluchow page, I have only ever created that page so I am glad it has remained. I will try to add more properly cited content on it. Thanks again! Also, can you help me add an image of him? I am not sure what images I am allowed to use, such as the one from the McMaster University site? Because I know there is an issue of image ownership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Ernest Hemingway 5000 vs 10000 wordsEdit

Just concerning the edit I made that you reversed on the Ernest Hemingway article with the note of "best not to use primary sources of dubious neutrality" in terms of the 5000 words requested by Life magazine and versus the 10000 words. My source was literally linked to the page in Life magazine, how is that a bad source when they're the ones who he was writing for, I think they know what they requested, no? You mean they're lying to inflate/deflate Hemingway's reputation somehow by publicly stating the wrong number of words? Do you have a quote from the book source you preferred? — Preceding unsigned comment added by X2ca (talkcontribs) 07:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Size of lead section in Melville appears to be in violation of Wikipedia policyEdit

The current length of the Herman Melville opening paragraphs appears to be in violation of WP:LEDE and WP:LEADLENGTH. Your edit appears to have reverted the article to be in violation of Wikipedia policy of 3-4 paragraphs here rather than the eight paragraphs which you have edited into the article. Can you repair this issue of Wikipedia policy. CodexJustin (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The recommended length is 3-4 paragraph. The lead before the edit I reverted is indeed more than 4 paragraph, but several of the paragraphs are very short. The lead has also suffered from edits that added unnecessary details. The solution is to rewrite the lead with selected details removed and longer paragraphs. A complete rewrite, based on the article as whole, is the way to fix the problem.

Neonorange (Phil) 16:19, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 31Edit

  The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 31, October – Novemeber 2018

  • OAWiki
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Peripheral neuropathyEdit


You recently reverted the edits which I made to Peripheral neuropathy. Your justification was "The lede prior to removal of material was neither to long nor redundant. The lede, by design, is meant to be a summary of the article body text". I disagree with this assessment.

  • first, the lead is too long. Generally, the recommended lead length for an article of this size is 2-3 paragraphs[1]
  • the lead is meant to be a concise summary of primary points, and written as simply as possible.[2]. The current version is not concise, uses medical jargon, and introduces non-essential ("trivia") information
  • the lead inappropriately offers medical advice, in violation of MOS[3]
  • the lead introduces non-standard abbreviation (which also is subsequently never used in the article)

The lines that I removed were either needlessly verbose, non-factual, or needlessly specific for the lead. That which was better suited for the article body was repositioned. If you find elements of these changes problematic, I would appreciate a discussion on the matter instead of reverting all of these changes. Dr G (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 32Edit

  The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 32, January – February 2019

  • #1Lib1Ref
  • New and expanded partners
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

On your decision to delete my edit on the Ernest Hemingway pageEdit

(reply moved to location of original message)Neonorange (Phil) 00:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

What is WP:MRDS?Edit

new section for new topic What is WP:MRDS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:1405:5ED:FD54:B826:F1A6:4444 (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for creating a typographical error in my comment. The correct leters are MEDRS; the shortcut is, properly, WP:MEDRS, standing in for Wikipedia:MedicalReliableSources. Click on [[this link to reach the reliable source requirements for English Wikipedia for medicine related articles.
The article, pimozide is currently under Pending changes protection. This is the lowest level of protection, usually to help prevent persistent vandalism. Any article so protected can be edited by anyone, but unless the editor is using a registered account that has made at least 12 edits and has existed for at least 3 days, the changes made will not appear until reviewed. IP addresses are not registered; if the article has any type of protection, the edit will be pended until review. A few thousand Wikipedia volunteers have the task of reviewing pended edits; committing the changes for publication almost immediately after acceptance.
I am a pending changes reviewer. I thought it best to unaccept your claim for treatment of gender dysphoria with pimozide because the source does not seem to meet the requirements of WP:MEDRS.
When you restored the edit I declined, that change is also pended, and may never appear. You should take two steps to edit this article: register an acount, then make at least 12 edits over three days, and find better sources for your information. Alternatively, you may make a request for your edit to be made on the article talk page. — Neonorange (Phil) 01:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Michelle HowardEdit

I'd like to know why my Cat addition to Michelle Howard's article was reversed. She's a director at IBM now, as mentioned in the article: "International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) announced that it appointed Howard to its board, effective March 1, 2019.[12]" n2xjk (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

N2xjk; I have no idea why I reverted your category addition. Somehow I got the impression you had removed the women board of director category... as you can see from my originaly edit summary, I even reread the article to make sure the category was supported by the article. I have reverted my revert. Neonorange (Phil) 19:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Misguided editEdit

personal attack in edit summary - who did I attack?

improper revision of punctuation—disregarded existence of parenthesis' unexplained deletion of citation - say again in English please. (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for posting a note to my talk page. Here we will have more space to discuss without being limited to the small space allowed for edit summaries.
improper revision of punctuation—disregarded existence of parenthesis;
The parenthetical phrase in the sentence Jima has a history of minor volcanic activity a few times per year (fumaroles and their resultant discolored patches of seawater nearby) but no evidence of an impending major eruption has been observed. using an opening and a closing parenthesis expands on fumaroles, and needs no off-setting commas; there is no list.
personal attack in edit summary the language you used in the edit summary could be considered agressive and insulting to the editor whom you reverted. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, yet editors here rarely meet face-to-face. Discussing edits and behavior should be civil—civility is a great help in ensuring a friction-free environment to build an encyclopedia.
You may not have noticed that this article is pending changes protected. This means that an editor who is unregistered or whose account has either fewer than ten edits or is less than three days old has their edit pended until it is reviewed editors with the pending changes reviewer right. I used that right to unaccept your edit. When you reverted my decision, the next pending changes editor also unaccepted your edit—and unaccepted your next revision. And then you reverted for the fourth time, this time by a third pending changes reviewer. No vandalism was involved, so you do not get a pass for violating the 3RR rule. Your best chance at a successful appeal of your 48-hour block is to read about pending changes protection, edit warring, and three edit reversion. Then explain those rules to the blocking admin an how you will avoid repeating the same error. Good luck. — Neonorange (Phil) 23:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for youEdit

  The Reviewer's Barnstar
This is for your valuable efforts for reviewing articles under pending changes protection. Thank you PATH SLOPU 07:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 33Edit

  The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 33, March – April 2019

  • #1Lib1Ref
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


Hi there. Please be much more careful reviewing BLP content, your acceptance of this edit that changes the subjects children to 25 was very poor indeed. Please be more careful or stop reviewing, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 06:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks for remarking on my error. I am sure this has not been my worst edit. Evidently I saw the erroneous pending edit, but somehow assumed that it was a correction, rather than the offending edit. I always try to do my best. I will remember this exchange. Probably not in, assuming good faith, the way either you nor I might wish. The "or stop reviewing" is a phrase more appropriate for a deliberate, meanspirited action. — Neonorange (Phil) 18:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Advanced permissions are removable if you fail to adhere to the standards, just take more care, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Leading your reply with a threat is not what I consider polite conduct. — Neonorange (Phil) 06:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
        • It is not a threat it is a reality. Please be aware, considering your objections if I see another equally poor review I will be forced to request your reviewer permissions be removed, sorry. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
          • Please go ahead an do what you feel you needed to do. Perhaps the reception you get will improve your understanding of what Wikipedia is and how it works. In fact, I insist you you report my work now, and cease your personal attacks. I have never had an unpleasant and completely useless conversation with a fellow editor on my talk page before. Please do not post on my talk page again. — Neonorange (Phil) 14:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


[1] Philip Trueman (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Eh? indeed. Makes no sense me either. I have removed the completely extraneous u at the sentence beginning and restored the clipped at. Thanks for catching my error so quickly and posting to my talk page. I also correctly restored my edit as intended:

The first one was the Alfa Romeo Superflow, a concept car built upon the chassis of a retired 6C 3000 CM racing car and first shown at the 1956 Turin Motor Show.

I can only plead my eyes misting over as I remember my long gone 1968 Alfa Romero Spyder (rebuilt from the body from one vehicle and the rebuilt engine from another.) — Neonorange (Phil) 04:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes Issue 34, May – June 2019Edit

  The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 34, May – June 2019

  • Partnerships
  • #1Lib1Ref
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Editing News #1—July 2019Edit

Read this in another languageSubscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Did you know?

Did you know that you can use the visual editor on a mobile device?

Every article has a pencil icon at the top. Tap on the pencil icon   to start editing.

Edit Cards

This is what the new Edit Cards for editing links in the mobile visual editor look like. You can try the prototype here: 📲 Try Edit Cards.

Welcome back to the Editing newsletter.

Since the last newsletter, the team has released two new features for the mobile visual editor and has started developing three more. All of this work is part of the team's goal to make editing on mobile web simpler.

Before talking about the team's recent releases, we have a question for you:

Are you willing to try a new way to add and change links?

If you are interested, we would value your input! You can try this new link tool in the mobile visual editor on a separate wiki.

Follow these instructions and share your experience:

📲 Try Edit Cards.

Recent releasesEdit

The mobile visual editor is a simpler editing tool, for smartphones and tablets using the mobile site. The Editing team has recently launched two new features to improve the mobile visual editor:

  1. Section editing
    • The purpose is to help contributors focus on their edits.
    • The team studied this with an A/B test. This test showed that contributors who could use section editing were 1% more likely to publish the edits they started than people with only full-page editing.
  2. Loading overlay
    • The purpose is to smooth the transition between reading and editing.

Section editing and the new loading overlay are now available to everyone using the mobile visual editor.

New and active projectsEdit

This is a list of our most active projects. Watch these pages to learn about project updates and to share your input on new designs, prototypes and research findings.

  • Edit cards: This is a clearer way to add and edit links, citations, images, templates, etc. in articles. You can try this feature now. Go here to see how: 📲Try Edit Cards.
  • Mobile toolbar refresh: This project will learn if contributors are more successful when the editing tools are easier to recognize.
  • Mobile visual editor availability: This A/B test asks: Are newer contributors more successful if they use the mobile visual editor? We are collaborating with 20 Wikipedias to answer this question.
  • Usability improvements: This project will make the mobile visual editor easier to use.  The goal is to let contributors stay focused on editing and to feel more confident in the editing tools.

Looking aheadEdit

  • Wikimania: Several members of the Editing Team will be attending Wikimania in August 2019. They will lead a session about mobile editing in the Community Growth space. Talk to them about how editing can be improved.
  • Talk Pages: In the coming months, the Editing Team will begin improving talk pages and communication on the wikis.

Learning moreEdit

The VisualEditor on mobile is a good place to learn more about the projects we are working on. The team wants to talk with you about anything related to editing. If you have something to say or ask, please leave a message at Talk:VisualEditor on mobile.

PPelberg (WMF) (talk) and Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Atlanta/Wiknic 2019 Sunday Aug 4Edit

I wanted to invite you to join Wikipedia:Meetup/Atlanta/Wiknic 2019, which is being held this weekend on Sunday August 4!--Pharos (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Metro Atlanta Wiki-Picnic Sunday: Wikipedia:Meetup/Atlanta/Wiknic 2019Edit

A friendly reminder that Wikipedia:Meetup/Atlanta/Wiknic 2019 is Sunday in Morgan Falls Park from 11am-2pm!--Pharos (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!Edit

  Thanks for contributing to the Fram workshop Neonorange! :) starship.paint (talk) 02:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


Hi there. I don't think we've had the pleasure of interacting before, but I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to evaluate my candidacy during my RfA. And then to further leave such a detailed comment is truly appreciated. I hope our wiki paths may cross again in the future. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

In addition to other factors, I was impressed that you were actively involved in the T&S/Fram/ARBCOM discussions while your RfA was underway. I am particularly interested in how Wikipedia operates, and compare its problems with those I saw in other organizations of which I've been a part: the news division of a major broadcast network; an underground newspaper '69—'71; a progressive political party, and technical divisions of several major corporation. Wikipedia fails, I think, to nourish leadership. COI I see here would never be allowed in most of what we consider reliable sources. I expect Wikipedia to be increasingly targeted by politically motivated manipulation. I fear your adminship is in for a rough voyage. — Neonorange (Phil) 06:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Neonorange".