User talk:SmokeyJoe/Archive 6

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Horse latitudes coordinates

A tag has been placed on Template:Horse latitudes coordinates requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can 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. Mahdy Saffar (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank You

I just wanted to thank you for seeing things similarly to how I do on that issue and being the only voice of support for my stance. I took the piece of shit replacement essay off my watchlist. It really sucks and is pretty useless as far as essays go. I kind of knew and feared from the beginning it would go this way over the "gendered" term with the handwringing over the lack of female editors here. I'm sure they'll be joining in droves now that we've eliminated the term "diva" from WP. Yay. It's a slippery slope, and soon essays like WP:Activist will be targeted because of "labeling". Ironic that the champion of this new ridiculous cause is one of the most uncivil long-term editors I've ever had the displeasure of dealing with here. I don't really give a crap what happens at AN/I anymore. This character is baying for my blood and it sickens me. This whole experience has been very disheartening. Anyhoo, thanks again for lending your support, and Cheers :) Doc talk 23:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Shingi Munyeza

I restored, and blanked User:Shingi Munyeza. By the way I didn't delete it because of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Shingi Munyeza but because there was a speedy delete tag on it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 02:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Re Foreign Affairs

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Order of the Netherlands Lion and subcategories relisted

Hello. You participated in either the CFD discussion to delete the above category and its subcategories or the DRV discussion regarding those categories (or both). The result of the DRV was to relist the categories for discussion. This is a notification that they have now been relisted for discussion here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Republic of Egypt

The redirect is nominated as RFD. I invite you for comments. --George Ho (talk) 05:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Advice via the move request on Roller skates

I am currently trying to deal with a plural naming convention problem involving four articles:

• Ice skate
• Figure skate
• Roller skates
• Inline skates

There seem to have been multiple move requests (on both sides of the issue), whether they should be plural or singular, However, it seems that the ice skating crowd always seems to lean toward the naming convention which technically should be singular, while the roller crowd says that it is going too far with the naming convention rules as they are always used in pairs.

My question is this: as the move requests seem to be blocked by non-consensus on both sets of pages, how in the world am I supposed to get both sets of pages to use the same convention? Clearly both sides cannot be right and personally, although I side on the singular, as I argued in the most recent move request here, I agree that it is a bit of a grey area, and it could be that 'ice skate' and 'figure skate' should instead to be changed to the plural.

Where is the best location to bring up a discussion to decide what naming convention should be used for all four articles? The requested moves board has so far been unhelpful in resolving this problem so I am unsure of how to proceed, and I hoped you could offer insight.  InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  13:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:Insertcleverphrasehere. I don't think that cross-article consistency is a healthy goal. When I tried for that with gasoline (not petrol), and petrol engine (not gasoline engine), I got my head bitten off, and learned to respect that different articles can have different histories, different nuances, even if on very closely related. Subsequently, I have observed that people, whether through page titling, or style issues, who work towards project wide consistency, that they cause more pain and grief than thanks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Lol that example is ridiculous (petrol and gasoline). Perhaps this is a more systemic wikipedia issue than I realised. I guessed that there would be a specific place to go to sort this kind of cross article consistency, but from what you said it seems like there isn't at all. However, it most definitely *is* a 'healthy' goal, it just seems like there isn't a system in place to make it happen without pissing a bunch of people off. This seems like something that should be addressed up at arbcom or something.  InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  08:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

In any case, the naming convention is rather clear on the subject of plurals vs singulars, and this isn't really a case like the english/american english you brought up. If it can be referred to in the singular (the Ice skate article, as well as the usage of the singular many times within the article itself, proves that it can), then it should. The fact that they are always used as a pair is rather irrelevant as that only applies to cases like trousers or scissors, where referring to a single scissor is completely meaningless.  InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  09:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Guide to Deletion

Joe, I thought you would be interested to know that the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion explicitly recognizes "Delete then Redirect", stating "Redirect is a recommendation to keep the article's history but to blank the content and replace it with a redirect. Users who want to see the article's history destroyed should explicitly recommend Delete then Redirect." The Guide has incorporated such guidance regarding "Delete then Redirect" since September 2005; before that, it previously included the concept of "Delete and then re-create as Redirect". Anyone who is suggesting that "Delete and redirect" !votes and outcomes are either improper or unheard does not know our well-established AfD procedures. Moreover, anyone who suggests that there is a built-in policy preference for keeping and/or restoring article history after a consensus "delete" or "delete and redirect" AfD outcome needs to do some more reading; nowhere in either WP:Deletion policy or WP:Editing policy is such a preference for the preservation of article history (as opposed to article content -- not the same thing) actually stated. The Guide to Deletion recognizes the distinction between history and content, and the validity of an !vote to delete the history. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I am familiar with this, and find this note a bit odd. I said, I think, "Delete then Redirect" !votes were uncommon, but they are not rare. Most AfDs stick to Delete/Keep/Merge/Redirect. There is nothing wrong with !voting "Delete then Redirect". For restoring content after deletion, either you must satisfactorily address the reasons for deletion, in which case the deleting admin will delete for you, if they have not more likely already userfied for you, or you go through WP:DRV. Again, I am not sure of your point? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

In fairness, Joe, you may be familiar with the Wikipedia Guide to Deletion, but it is evident that many, if not most of the discussion participants are not, several of whom are hell-bent to represent "delete and redirect" !votes and consensus outcomes as somehow suspect, illegitimate, procedurally wrong, and easily disregarded. My point is this: that's a misrepresentation of well-established AfD procedures by several "experienced" DRV participants who are arguing from positions of presumed knowledge and authority. It should be embarrassing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:People Like Us (film)

Ongoing RM discussion. --George Ho (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Wishing you all the best . . .

Merry Christmas, Joe, and may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Southern Alps

When talking part in the move request at Talk:Southern Alps you wrote:

"Ambiguous. The Alps are in Europe. They are extensive and "southern" reads as an adjective. "Southern Alps" will be read as the southern regions of the Alps by anyone familiar with European mountains and not familiar with New Zealand mountains."

Yet that situation is covered by the AT policy page:

"Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize."

Articles are named for people familiar with the the subject but not an expert. Anyone familiar with the subject will already know that the Southern Alps are a mountain range in New Zealand. If we were to title every article to cater for people not familiar with a subject we would end up with very long descriptive names for all sorts of things. A decision to change the wording of AT to accommodate that point of view has repeatedly failed to gain a consensus. To exaggerate to make the point: Ireland an island off the European mainland and part of the British Islands depending on ones politics or Great Britain one or more islands off continental Europe itself part of the Euro-asian landmass. -- PBS (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, SmokeyJoe!

Happy New Year!

SmokeyJoe,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Precious anniversary

Two years ago ...

help and trust
... you were recipient no. 713 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Email

SmokeyJoe -- I had an alert that you sent me an email through Wikipedia, however upon checking my email I don't see it. I checked all folders, spam, etc., and it simply isn't there. Please try again or reach out to me on IRC. Thanks. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, SmokeyJoe. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Your email.
Message added 16:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Tiggerjay (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Case Closed

Thanks for fixing my typo[1]. I respectfully disagree with your three assertions, however. --В²C ☎ 04:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Most welcome. It can be a dangerous thing to correct other's typos, but where obvious, especially where I am responding directly to it, I think it a nice thing to do unless asked not to. The three assertions, well of course they are asserted opinions, other's agreement is not required. I just feel the need to assert such things because the previous close should be respected, because allowing immediate repeat RMs is to fail to respect the preceding close. This is beside the point that there is consensus against the move. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand admonitions against discussion. The previous close was no consensus. We develop consensus through discussion. In this case it's likely to develop that there is consensus to not move. Why not allow this to develop? --В²C ☎ 21:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

If a discussion is to be closed before reaching a perfect consensus, it requires someone to close it with their best judgement of a rough consensus. When this happens, that close needs to be afforded some measure of respect. Immediately opening a new discussion is no different to rejecting the previous close and converting it to a relist. That is the reason to admonish.

The need to close many questions at a time point is widely assumed. Without it, huge numbers of unimportant questions could continue endlessly. The current Case Closed RM is an extreme example of unimportance. The previous RM, properly run and closed, albeit with a procedural hiccup, found no consensus to move from the long standing title. Now, the new discussion is running to overturn the "no consensus" close and supplant it with a "consensus to not move". That's an absurd waste of time. The current RM nomination should have been closed as out of process. Alternatively, it can be closed as WP:SNOW, or per the obvious consensus. In whatever case, it was a waste of time and disrespectful to previous close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

As you are wont to do, you are making up your own rules and mores that are contrary to established process in the community. Long-standing consensus-supported guidance on this very point could not be clearer, nor more contrary to what you're saying: While it is usually bad form to re-request a move if consensus is found against it (until and unless circumstances change), it is not considered bad form to re-raise a request that found "no consensus" to move. [2] If you think this guidance misrepresents community consensus on this point, then I suggest you take it up at WT:RM; in the mean time, please do not make baseless statements that suggest consensus is opposite of this. Thank you. --В²C ☎ 18:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

RMCI is no place for behavioural advice, and that is bad advice. Of course it is bad form to re-raise a request that has just been raised debated and closed.

You wrote: "Oppose and speedy close - no evidence presented supporting the claim made in nom. Any such proposal should be speedy closed. I think it's just rude to make a proposal without giving participants an evidence-based argument to consider. "I think that..." doesn't cut it. Not even close. --В²C ☎ 00:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)"

I consider this exactly the same. Opening a proposal with no new evidence-based argument since the immediately previous discussion is like opening a proposal with no evidence-based argument. Actually, I consider it worse, because of the disrespect shown to the previous closer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• В²C, I'm afraid that I didn't fix your typo (I didn't remember doing it at all), I apparently accidentally introduced the typo in your post. Sincere apologies, I don't know how that happened. I just fixed it just fixed it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • LOL. Okay, thanks for real this time! --В²C ☎ 23:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

ANI notification

I've brought up your MFD concerns and your removal of the notice at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#MFD_relistings. Please comment there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Policy discussion in progress

There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of People Like Us, a question in which you previously participated. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — LlywelynII 12:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Why I haven't commented on MOS:SUPPORTS

Thank you for advising me of the situation with MOS:SUPPORTS. While I most certainly do have an opinion on the project and whether or not the page should be deleted, I am not at the moment permitted to share it with you, and I'm not confident that Dicklyon is either. Please note the identities of the filer and principal complainant and make of this what you will. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a violation of your topic ban, DF. RGloucester — ☎ 14:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Is this a skirmish or a proxy battle in some great pathetic game? I am really wondering how the template fits the story. RG, you come across as very petty. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to be abused by a topic-banned editor who has not respected the boundaries of the topic ban since it was imposed. Regardless, everyone is petty. To be human is petty. Even petty pebbles can become boulders, and I shan't allow this one to roll over me. RGloucester — ☎ 17:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

About the WP:RFD name change

I didn't get a chance to answer your question in the discussion about when WP:RFD changed its name. According to the edit history of Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion, it looks like it was renamed in July 2006. Steel1943 (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. That was a long time ago. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Upset

I might have conveyed this at the DRV, but I am very upset at User:Steel1943 for the Donald Drumpf DRV. He seems to have started it just to make some point about my NAC, and he's ignored the fact that it would've been closed the way I closed it by just about anyone. All he focuses in in his comments are the NAC, he never gives any substantive proof that it could have been closed differently. He is wasting a great deal of community time that could have been avoided if he hadn't started such a foolish DRV that clearly is not going to go his way. pbp 16:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Purplebackpack89: {{Noping}} would have been a better way to not let me know that you posted this here. Now, I have to assume that you believe that my nomination was in bad faith and you have resorted to "behind-the-back forum shopping". Your comment here doesn't do anything to help your case in the discussion, but rather seems to be a desire to inspire drama. Steel1943 (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• I kinda do assume that your nomination (and User:Godsy's endorsement of said nomination) was in bad faith, Steel, in that it ignores common sense. You and the two people who support the DRV being relisted are completely ignoring the fact that it would not have been closed any other way by anyone at any time, and are far, far too hung up on procedure. What will happen if this is relisted? It will produce the exact same outcome it did as it would have if I had closed it. You have yet to produce any shard of evidence that it wouldn't. So why even bother relisting it? pbp 17:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Purplebackpack89: I join with the opinion of S Marshall in the Donald Drumpf DRV, and I'd suggest you take the advice in Sandstein's close. I don't have a response to the baseless claim that I acted in bad faith, if you truly want a response, raise the question in a different manner on my talk page.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

pbp, clearly there was some point to be made about your NAC closes. Clearly you should take a step back. If in any doubt, ask User:Sandstein. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

RFC on Real Robot title

Hi. Since you participated in a recently closed (no consensus) move discussion for Real Robot, I’m just notifying you of an RFC on that title. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)

I invite you to RM discussion. I would love your improvement on consensus. --George Ho (talk) 06:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks. I saw it. I even typed up a moderately long !vote before having doubts and then closed without saving. I might go back to it. I think I prefer to defer to sources should there be doubts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Feel free to comment your doubts there. You don't have to !vote yet. --George Ho (talk) 05:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It's been almost a month, and the RM discussion is still open. Are you still interested? --George Ho (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Old A10s in draftspace

Re this edit, a page can't be both "recently created" and "not edited for x amount of time". (Unless x is unreasonably short.) I didn't want to reply there directly since quibbling about technicalities would probably just be a distracting tangent. —Cryptic 02:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Centralized ENGVAR, DATEVAR, CITEVAR discussion

This may be of interest, since you were involved in the previous round of this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Cleaning up and normalizing MOS:ENGVAR, WP:CITEVAR, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Simon Lee Gallery listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Simon Lee Gallery. Since you had some involvement with the Simon Lee Gallery redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Legacypac (talk) 03:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe you care to explain this page move? [[3]] that combines attacking me and pushing a perfectly reasonable article back into the userspace of a long departed user? Any gallery that reps a long list of bluelink artists passes GNG just fine. Legacypac (talk) 03:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Another similar to Graffiki AfD

I noticed User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2016/March#end run around MfD; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard d'Anjolell shares the same problem as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graffiki (User:Kemdflp/richard d'anjolell). As the closing administrator differs, after talking to Malcolmxl5 about Richard d'Anjolell, listing one or both (together if both) at DRV may be appropriate. What do you think?—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Reversion

Hi SmokeyJoe: A recent edit you performed at MfD has been reverted. You may want to check it out. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

If you watch the hamsters long enough, they jump up at the same time!

Congratulations!

Your prize for !voting in an MFD of a page started and maintained by Cinteotl is that I'm now asking you if you want to be named as a pary to the request for clarification on an Arbitration case that clearly needs no clarification!

I guessed your answer would be "Of course not!", but if you want to comment, the link is here.

Cheers!

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Question

Just wondered why you were not an admin or if there was some reason you did not want to be. Given your experience, your astute reasoning and your extensive work with deletion, you would be a fantastic asset to the community as an administrator. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Poke ... have you given this any though? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I think I should write a couple of articles first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Nat Soc, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

The "show preview" button is right next to the "save page" button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Your opinion if something should be deleted or not (and the comment explaining why, of course) always goes there where the other comments are, which is not necessarily at the end of the page. Laber□^T 00:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:VanishedUser 23asdsalkaka/Partysandbox

It's all yours, please see: User:SmokeyJoe/Wikipedia governance reform. Please keep in mind the MfD discussion when updating this, especially if you plan to move to the project space. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Collect essay; second bite at the cherry

You participated in an MfD discussion about an essay by Collect that was in mainspace. The result was userfy and it was moved to user space accordingly. The essay has been moved back to mainspace. There is a discussion as to whether it should be renamed and moved. The discussion is here. Writegeist (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

DRV

I managed to mess up an edit in DRV and ended up removing a couple of comments, one of the editors who's comment I removed noticed this and did a blanket revert [4] in doing so they removed an additional comment you have made. It gets a bit messy since that removed comment was in the place of a comment you had already made and I had made the mistake on removing, it's not clear if you'd want that additional comment to stand or not, so I've left it alone and will let you resolve if it's needed or not. Sorry for creating this bit of a mess. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 05:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

retaining edits

by the particular sock simply encourages further returns. Telltale signs of editing and material and the use of serves. You might feel correct procdure to remove the prod, however the checkuser delays are usually so slow in response to this particular master - it will probably return with further edits. JarrahTree 05:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

also removing the prod notice doesnt get around the notice to the sock at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rintopy JarrahTree 05:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, JarrahTree, but I have this old affection for closed down railway stations. How about I strip the references,

• http://www.beverleywa.com/sights.html Station Gallery
• Newland, Andrew; Quinlan, Howard (2000). Australian Railway Routes 1854 - 2000. Redfern: Australian Railway Historical Society. p. 66. ISBN 0-909650-49-7.
• http://www.heritageaustralia.com.au/news/4057-wa-heritage-council-awards-announced WA Heritage Council awards announced
• https://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/Carpenter/2007/05/Top-honours-in-2007-Heritage-Council-Awards.aspx
• http://wastations.i8.com/GSR/Beverley/Beverley_Station.html

And recreate it from scratch later. I'll rePROD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

never apologise - it would seem a reasonable call from your side, I have a real problem with this particular sock... the issues are complex and it is not so easy - there was a gap when we simply deleted the socks edits last time confirmed, and things went quiet - adding legit info but not being part of the community - I could ramble on at great length about the issues. The prod is no big deal. It is how to relate to the issue... but hey, it is another day. JarrahTree 06:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

You are very kind.  :-) I really appreciate you saying that you're changing your mind. Too few editors listen as carefully as you, and even fewer say that they are re-thinking their original idea and remind us all that we should approach conversations with open minds and a willingness to improve upon our first thoughts.

You couldn't have known this, but I've been angry for the last hour (a real-life inconvenience) and seeing your reply has significantly improved my mood. Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

"Hasteur's not an admin"

Thank you for the vote of confidence, but I have declined having that pride of place attached to my name. Part of the reason is my currently waning interest in the wiki, the other part stems from the fact that there are several editors that I have offended at some point (especially in light of the great MMA WikiWars) I'm perfectly happy to gather the aspects that make me an adman in the hopes that one day I can meet all the requirements. Right now I seem to be bumping up against the sensibilities of 10 year veteran admins, so that won't do. Hasteur (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Was (sceptre)

Hi, I've reverted my edits on Talk:Was (sceptre) per your request. Taking another look, I actually agree with your proposed name more than the noms so to not come off as supervoting, I've left a support vote. Hope that clears up any missunderstandings. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SmokeyJoe. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kyep.
Message added 19:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just a note that another user provided a follow-up comment to your comment at the discussion. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Brilliant Idea Barnstar

While we tend to fall on opposite sides of the issues at MfD, I do hope you know I appreciate your opinions and input. In many cases, I've adjusted my behavior accordingly. As for the idea you proposed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Best Beauty Pageant Countries, I quite like it. It sounds almost like an extended (6 month?) PROD which is processed all at once to cut down on administrator overhead. Do you think consensus would be obtainable for such a process? If so, it should be pursued. ~ RobTalk 05:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Rob. Two people in agreement is a pretty good start. Maybe you could comment at Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#Tagging_drafts. Or even better, improve the idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Removing Wikiproject templates

Please see WP:SCOPEWAR. If you are a project regular - then you can decide what that project is and is not interested in. Additionally - regarding your edit summary, please assume good faith and do not accuse editors of "Intentionally making mischief". SQL^{Query me!} 18:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Probably "spamming" would have been a better word. NB there is little doubt that it was intentional, and spamming is quite defensibly considered mischief. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Komal Jha

Thanks for the inputs and guidance ! But, could you also let me know how to go about it next? I have done a significant job on the article, I suppose. But, please look in to this for any lacunae and let me know how can I correct it, if any. If all well, please input me on how to do WP:MOVE or anything relevant. Thanks ! Ch.th (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello There ! Thanks for all the support provided. I see this "(cur | prev) 22:07, 24 June 2016‎ JohnCD (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,301 bytes) (+2,047)‎ . . (→‎Draft:Komal Jha: Closing debate; result was keep (using User:Doug/closemfd.js)) (undo | thank)" in the discussion thread's view history. Is it now appropriate for the next step of action? Please help.

Also, I have contributed to couple of other two articles, where I found that I have data but the admins who had nominated for deletion did not have. Similarly, I an looking to create an article for Ravi Mooruru, as I have sufficient data on him and is a notable personality regionally. Please advice. Thanks ! Ch.th (talk) 04:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

MFD

MFD was closed by involved admin with a vested interest in keeping it closed. So wrong in that sense. Also their stated reason is incorrect - MFD handles both mediawiki and gadgets as stated at the top of MFD, so suggesting its handled elsewhere is also incorrect. If people disagree with the nomination they are free to do so as part of the deletion discussion. Also see the WP:INVOLVED discussion regarding Edokter at AN. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Railpage Australia

Regarding your advice, I did recapitulate the history of the previous AfDs. I explained what was wrong with them, how WP:WEB wasn't handled well, and how most weren't actually discussions because of aforementioned user conduct issues. The closer ignored all of it and demonstrated a pretty poor grasp of policy while doing so. I don't understand how this is a procedurally valid outcome. I'm sorry to come bother you on your talk page like this but the entire situation feels Kafkaesque. Best, Mackensen (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Charles,

You are always welcome on my talk page, especially if it is to query something I have written.

You are a very senior Wikipedian! I didn't realise, and I feel unqualified to be giving you advice. But I will try anyway...

The close was non-ideal, agreed, however, it could not have been closed as delete.

Yes, you did mention the previous AfDs. And now that I look closer, I see they are a rushed bunch from 2007. I have not read them through. I offered my generic "renominating" essay because I see that there is probably a case to be made, but the nomination failed to gain traction. Why did it fail to gain traction. I can see immediately, although it is very hard to explain. It contained valid points, but it was meandering and wordy. When I looked at the article, I did not immediately see a problem connected to your nomination statement. I hesitate to dare to suggest googling "how to write persuasively". I don't mean to be rude, but I think there is advice needed there. The AfD failed because you failed to get people to agree with you.

Your first paragraph is good and honest and to be welcomed by reviewers of the nomination, but it really isn't a good opening paragraph. Instead, the nomination should begin with a simple, verging over-simple, statement on "why the topic should be deleted".  : The second paragraph begins with a statement ("I don't think the site meets our notability guidelines and I don't think the article establishes a claim to notability.") that is sort of what is required to begin, but really isn't good enough. If it is only a "think" statement, then go away to analyse further and don't come back until you have made up your mind. The nominator should be sure. You want the topic deleted, you do not want an idle discussion. Then note that Wikipedia-notability is not a reason for deletion if there is a viable merge target. Looking at the article, though not deeply, I do immediately suspect that if not independently notable, the topic could be merged somewhere. Then, instead of stating why the topic entirely does not belong, the text becomes wordy, addressing tangents.

Jumping to the third paragraph and you are raising COI issues. This is a behavioural issue, and although a factor, it is rarely a good deletion reason by itself. COI is effective in deletion discussions if the thrust is promotion, and often the desired outcome is WP:TNT, but not permanent deletion of the topic.

The last paragraph, well into the sentence, says "this topic fails WP:WEB". That's where you should begin, as the opening statement, and then continue to explain why it fails WP:WEB, irretrievably. After having established the core argument, then summarise the previous discussions, relevant COIs (in the deletion discussions), and how discussions were clouded by disruptive conduct. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time for such a considerate reply; I do appreciate it. I agree that it could not have been closed as delete; my thinking is that it should have been relisted to generate additional participation. I went wordy precisely to avoid what happened anyway--someone seeing how many nominations there had been and rejecting the idea of an additional nomination out of hand as disruptive or dead on arrival. I was at pains to demonstrate that in fact most of the nominations were invalid, and that the one nomination (the second) that actually had a substantive result probably wasn't "good law" anymore given how our understanding of WP:WEB has evolved since 2007. I think I demonstrated that; certainly no one disagreed with me except for the closer, and I don't think (as I've said) that he understands policy very well. I didn't bring up a merge because I couldn't come up with a valid merge target, and there wasn't much in the way of sourced material to merge.

There's simply not enough participation to close the discussion either way. This is all why I argued at DRV for the article to be relisted. This is a classic relisting situation--only a few participants, lacking in policy discussions. You've got me setting out the case for a deletion, and Unscintillating making various process arguments but not engaging the actual issue. I see no harm in a relist, particularly given the serious weaknesses in the non-admin close, and I can't recall seeing another deletion discussion closed like this (one week, essentially no participants) instead of being relisted. Best, and thanks again, Mackensen (talk) 02:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The community has politely asked you to respect WP:BEFORE.  WP:BEFORE C3 says that one editor has no standing to take up the time of other editors at AfD without first addressing the issues on the talk page of the article.  There it is in black and white, and you scratch your head?  Why are you so special?  A speedy keep in this context implies WP:NPASR, although a couple of months to engage on the talk page of the article might be appropriate.  I suggest that you can correct the deficiencies in your WP:BEFORE preparation, instead of undermining WP:BEFORE and AfD with complaining.  Thanks.  P.S. Sorry if I seem to be disrespectful to a VIP, but all I know is that your nomination was not ready for AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

In general I agree with that. Especially for an article that has existed for 10 years, a simple talk page discussion wouldn't hurt. I suspect that the lack of participation was because others likely assumed they'd get an edit conflict between themselves and the "speedy keep" closer. I would consider myself to be quite familiar with policies and guidelines. If you'd check out my contributions, you'd see several AfD closures, none of which have been contested. I do believe 1 or 2 of my closures awhile ago received negative feedback, and I was happy to revert my close then, but with this deletion discussion, it did not appear that another result was possible, so I left as is. I do agree that the article needs improvement. It is written more like a directory or guide, and needs a more encyclopedic viewpoint. It doesn't appear you followed WP:BEFORE, either. — Music1201 ^talk 05:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

So, which should I use

... {{db-u1}} or {{db-u1}}? —ATS 🖖 Talk 06:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• User:ATS, something that is entirely your own work may be deleted by you tagging it with {{db-g7}}. Something in your userspace that is not a talk page can be deleted by you tagging it {{db-u1}}.

If both apply, you may use either, or both.

Pages appropriately tagged with these WP:CSD templates usually get deleted pretty promptly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Damn. Apparently, I'm not funny anymore. —ATS 🖖 Talk 07:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Embarrassed smile. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Pornbio

Hello. PORNBIO may be a word that you don't want to hear ever again, I don't know. I am reviewing some of the discussions that took place in 2013 [5], [6] because I have involved myself in two PORNBIO related AfDs.

It may be some of the same issues are being argued yet again. Neither of these appear to pass GNG or ANYBBIO and so on. And the references are all press releases for one article and the other is mostly all press releases. And the awards for which notability is claimed have received only passing mention in the press releases with the awardees name.

It is hard to believe that some are actually arguing for keep under these conditions. I am wondering if it was actually established that these are subject to BLP? Also, I am wondering if any consensus developed that would circumvent the creation of what appear to be frivolous Porn Biography articles in the first place, and these AfD's in the second place.

Other of these types of articles have resulted in a keep at AfD [7] for a "superslut" award along with crystal balling commentary in the first long comment. Also, as you can see the AfD was long and contentious, but I don't see how it resulted in "keep". I'll try to find a couple more - I am pressed for time. But there was one where all the ivotes were keep and closed as such.

I doubt you will be able to participate in these two ongoing AfDs without this appearing as vote stacking on my part [8], [9]. But if you look at these, you can see the keep voters are throwing in commentary designed to circumvent the need for just generally adhering to guidelines and policies. This includes focusing on only the first two sentences in PornBio. Any advice would be much appreciated. Here is another one that resulted in a no consensus keep [10].

For me I think the point is, these appear to be insignificant categories within a major award - such as "superslut" category as part of the XRCO Awards - and not Best Director or Best Actress of the Year. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Note

Specifically, revision deleted edits where the username or IP were removed won't show up as deleted edits. Cheers. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Userify "Salimullah Khan"

Dear SmokeyJoe, as decided in the Deletion Review of the page "Salimullah Khan", the article deletion has been endorsed and it is recommended to be userified. Please restore the article to my userspace so that I can add the links and restore it to the mainspace.

Tahmidal Zami (talk) 09:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)User:Tahmidal Zami —Preceding undated comment added 09:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

A discussion you may be interested in

I have just made a new nomination for renaming categories for those U.S cities where the article doesn't include the state name. Since you participated in a recent discussion about this, you may want to express your opinion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 6#Major US cities. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Plastikspork

Thanks. I was surprised when he relisted the prehistoric caves navbox and annoyed when he vanished and then my question was archived. It seems as though TfDs are more likely to be relisted then AfDs, or rather that AfDs get decided with less discussion. Doug Weller talk 09:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Please don't patronise me

Your reply such as "This is not the reference desk. If you have no ideas, maybe you should go there?" at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Category talk:Wikipedia soft redirected categories sounded to me rather patronising. I hope it was not intended that way, because Wikipedians are supposed to WP:AGF. I have been around a little while and I do know what I am doing, so the fact I don't know everything don't mean I don't know nothing. The reference desk would be the wrong forum anyway, because that is to answer questions that are in reader space, not those that are in editor space. User:Godsy, a non-admin, kindly closed the MfD and gave me a pointer to where I should list it for discussion. Thanks. Si Trew (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry Simon. I'm not very good at it, but I had an urge to poke fun at you for your opening sentence. It read to me like the worst of any deletion nomination "I don't understand so let's delete it". Admittedly, you deserve full credit for open honesty, and the page was pretty weird looking. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User:Truth

Hi SmokeyJoe, question about Wikipedia:User:Truth. Was this intended to be in the project namespace? Currently it is orphaned, has no incoming links. If the page was meant for your reference, perhaps it makes sense to put it in your userspace? Thanks, — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Andy. It was a start at an observed maxim. I saw the maxim in use, and quickly verified it to be generally true - most usernames containing "truth" are blocked. But not all. These maxims are probably already collected in Project space, appropriately, although many "laws" of editors are more personal opinion (even if quite apt) and located in userspace. eg User:Raul654/Raul's laws. I have hesitated continuing because this maxim can be read as speaking directly to certain individual users. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay no worries. I bring this up because I requested certain double-namespace prefixes be added to the blacklist, and have been doing some minor cleanup beforehand. It's okay if that page isn't moved, but if the entries are added, you wouldn't be able to create the talk page for it, or archives, etc. easily. It may make sense to move it to something like "Wikipedia:Truth usernames" or something to avoid the conflict. Anyway, just a heads up. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 03:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'd suggest a catchy title such as Wikipedia:The Truth about Truth or Wikipedia:Truth?. I suppose Wikipedia:Truth usernames works too. As written, it kind of reads like you're referring to a specific user, which is certainly not the intent. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Userfied to User:SmokeyJoe/Users named "Truth". It's unlikely to go anywhere. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

killing the proposal?

I didn't kill the proposal. I just strongly argued against it. You killed it for saying why.

You want to watch the fellow who proposed it. Has not done any translation. Very easy to propose FORRED stuff when you don't know any other languages. Translation is easy, right? Even computers can do it. There is a mess up about some automated computer tool I forget what it is CXD or something that WIkimedia foundation tried to force on people. Not me, I edit everythign plain and longhand, no spelling checkers, no anything, plain text editor. Then at least my mistakes are my own. Every translation or edit I do I type it out longhand, I don't use any tools I wouldn't know they are just clutter to me. Old fashioned, I guess. Not just at Wikipedia but in real life with real tools, woodworking tools and things like that, I use manual tools cos I can feel the wood and feel the saw, I don't want an electric tool that just butchers my lovely bit of wood. My maternal grandfather was a carpented in his spare ime and taught me to look after my tools. I have his that are more than 100 years old and as good as the day they were made. Takes a bit of care, like Wikipedia. Same with my writing. I know I wrote "everthign" up there, and I did spot it, but left it there: that's what I mean, at least that is my error and I can see it and of course in an article I would correct it. Si Trew (talk) 00:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Si Trew. I'm not sure if you are criticising my response. Was "killed" the wrong word? What I mean is that your contribution to that discussion I found so convincing that what I though looked like a reasonable proposal I now see has having no merit for inclusion as a new CSD. I try to avoid prefacing every post with "In my opinion ..." because I think it is implied. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I love google translate, and spelling checkers that highlight probable spelling errors and repeated words. Not so sure about grammar checks. With some knowledge of the foreign language, I can understand very well, and correct, the translations. Google translations are not to be trusted, but for me they do an excellent job of getting the job started. If you like to do it from scratch yourself, good for you, almost certainly you must be much better than me in the other language. I'm not sure if we are communicating on the same wavelength? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I am somewhat laconic with my british way of complimenting people by insulting them. I only suggested the grounds for it, I didn't know the stuff you said #1 it fails this, #2 it fails that, I was just arguing from common sense, I dunno I am gjust a gnome I didn't research the policy and I was jsut trying to state what I thought was WP:COMMONSENSE. I seem to have a habit of inadvertently insulting people these days. For that I can only apologise. I cremated me mum on Monday, it was quite a nice day to see all the family, although we get fewer every year. My family are always very sarcastic to each other, it is the way we show our love, you have to be wittily sarcastic, fuck off is not sarcastic or funny, that is just rude, but perhaps that has been leaking out on Wikipedia a bit but I certainly meant no harm of it. To say at the service that her terrible singing voice, on the musicals of Rogers and Hammerstein, meant that hammerstein got hammered and rogers got.. (rogered) no in there but I don't know in English slang rogered means fucked, essenially)_ it is funny because of what is not said but everyone knows, and funny because you punned it that way. I couldn't be bohered to insult someone I didn;t care about.

No, I think your summary of my argments is good, I think the argument was good. I know how to construct an argument. Sentence first, verdict aftwares, as the Red Queen said to Alice. I'll reply fuler about the linguistics bit but I better get this clear I did not man no harm quite the opposite and if it carried that way I can only apologise. Si Trew (talk) 03:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

No worries. I quite like the so called British sense of humour, though I think there is no such single thing, and that many British are quite lacking in sense of humour. At least few are over-serious like many Americans. My intention was to support your post, because it was very good, but not to repeat it. Technical policy argument arguments are particularly appropriate for proposed new CSDs, in my opinion. My concern was only that I may inadvertently patronised or offended you.

"Sentence first, verdict aftwares"? That's not the style I work towards. I find that if your position is not clear in the first 3-5 words, half the audience will stop reading. Therefore: <Strong statement>, <justifications in decreasing order of importance>. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

You'l hate my essay at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a spelling checker then! Lets get my first beef out of the way is that they are not spellcheckerss. The don't check spells, they check spelling. They are spelling checkers. But I realise that is 1 vs The World on that one.

Yes, akll these automated tools have their uses. Someone a good regular added machine assisted translation as an R I think to Computer assisted translation, I am going from memory, and all these tools to help translation etc are a good thing to someone who knows how to use the tool. Same as any tool. My granfather was a carpenter, as I said. He would tell me, "son, pick the right tool for the job. Now, let the tool do the work. Don;t force it, let the tool do the job". This is with hand tools cut better than a razor blade. Let the tool do the job. One of his other aphorisms that I carry to this day is that "cleaning up is part of the job". You haven't finished until it's all cleaned up. Every day I do that, and the same in real life as in Wikpedia. Much of what we have at RfD is because nobody told them, "Cleaning up is part of the job". I pick litter off the street and think why could zou not put that in a litter bin, it was only twenty feet away from you. The modern world baffles me. Si Trew (talk) 03:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Note I used "spelling checkers" above, I'm with you on that.

"Cleaning up is part of the job"? Yes, but in some jobs it is important to not finished, a finished job makes you redundant. Slippery slope to corruption. The world would be a better place if everybody cleaned up their mess. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

What's going on?

What is going on?  I made one edit to clean up an old tag and you've gone ballistic.  That tag has now been removed by the closing administrator, but you are not done. 

The WP:5P are "The fundamental principles of Wikipedia".  WP:BOLD "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow".  The right to edit on Wikipedia derives directly from WP:5P3, and WP:BOLD is explicitly listed in WP:5P5.  I have written neither WP:5P nor WP:BOLD. 

Your recent comments IMO show disrespect and the use of appeals to emotion, and such edits contradict WP:5P4.  We have always had a good working relationship.  The irony in a discussion about WP:BOLD is that you have been engaging in WP:BRRD.  IMO, insisting on your version of the Project Page in order to discuss it is not helpful. 

What I want is that you request that the Project Page be restored to the language it had for 2 1/2 years.  The edit by Diego Moya was ok, as this will allow a WP:BRD discussion.  I also request that you elide the WP:5P4 contradictions on the talk page.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• You reverted to the repudiated version, and then insisted on doing so again. To me, the RfC was very clear, and especially clear if read the RfC after removing your posts. With one exception, you were alone in supporting your text (the text your wrote, defended, and reverted to), and your posts to the RfC were completely unpersuasive (mostly due to being off-point rather than wrong). When you had the RfC closer back you up, revert the page, in clear inconsistency with her closing statement, it became very serious. I think my edit summaries and talk page post show a willingness to discuss.

Why you were doing this I cannot grasp. You have a history of advocating WP:PRESERVE, my best guess is that this is your motivation, that you do not see bold moves of articles to draftspace as destructive? There is overwhelming disagreement evident in the RfC. I am interested in your explanation, because I believe you to be intelligent and thoughtful, and usually demonstrating similar philosophies to my mine. That I was responding in confusion as to what you were thinking may explain what I did. I was convinced that you edits were bad. I was astounded with the RfC closer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Your response is heavily based on your personal reading of the RfC.  I think most people would feel that the discussion tag should have been removed at the time of closing six months ago. 

The text in question has been stable for 2 1/2 years.  Why should it be in any other state for changes to be discussed?  I'm not good with WP:BRRD. 

There are so many other points here.

You say that you are trying to avoid "pseudo-deletions", but what is the evidence of a problem?  I used the word "dicta" in my first revert, which I was using to mean judicial rulings for issues that were not submitted to the court for review. 

My view is that we have both the draft space and we have the right to edit.  WP:BOLD is a functional system, and until we have a problem to solve, why do we need a solution? 

In the same vein, why do you think that a move to draft space is destructive?  By definition, edits should be improving Wikipedia. 

Are you aware of why I was looking at the WP:DRAFTS page?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you should reply at WT:Drafts and explain your reading of the RfC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you should support our WP:5P.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Nitesh Tiwari

I agree that there are two people with the name of Nitesh Tiwari in the Indian film industry. The subject of the draft articles is the author of the draft articles, and has been blocked for sockpuppetry. However, one version of the draft should be kept, because someone may be able to make it into an acceptable article which will need to be disambiguated. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Persians Page Issues You Might Be Interested In

Hi! There are 3 topics in the table of contents on the Persian People Talk Page that all refer back to the core issue at hand in this article, namely restricting the definition of Persian to the current borders of Iran, which I've tried to address countless times. The link here shows it's not simply a POV as a couple of users are stating but something that other users have also noted, including yourself, namely that modern day borders and boundaries do not magically make the Persian people who've been living on the land un-Persian. I presented an overhauled version of the article but it was all removed and is now even more reduced than what I worked on, the article is complete trash now compared to what it was simply based on 1 or 2 users' discretion on what topics they feel should be covered and what they feel shouldn't be. At the risk of imposing on you, I was curious to hear your thoughts on the issue. Please check out the last 3 topics mentioned in the talk page in the provided link. Thanks for your time! -570ad (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, SmokeyJoe. 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)

THANK YOU AGAIN!

Thank you for the help you gave me for the sabre-tooth cat article!208.114.41.213 (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Three years ago ...

help and trust
... you were recipient no. 713 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

not you...

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Steamboat Bill

Smokey, thanks for your sensible comments at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2016_December#Steamboat_Bill.2C_Jr., among all the noise there. Among your notes, "Neither do I find the WP:INVOLVED allegation is sufficiently substantiated." So far, everyone effectively agrees with you, but since their reasons are all to do with the comma and nothing to do with the evidence of involvement, I'm not convinced that anyone has even looked at the evidence. Did you read User_talk:Dicklyon#Hoaxing, where he expresses exactly the sentiment that WP:JR does not apply to non-bio articles and that attempts to apply it are essentially equivalent to vandalism ("hoaxes are not tolerated") from his point of view? Not to mention his prior objection in the RFC on WP:JR. Having expressed these opinions against the guideline and its applicability, how could he think he could close a discussion on exactly that issue, rather than just voting, like others with strongly helds views on it did?

Sorry to bother you, but nobody else seems like they are likely to even hear a word I say; maybe you will. As for a later RFC to reconsider, seems unlikely that anyone is going to want to do that. Dicklyon (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dick. Thanks for your thanks. As usual, you have at least my sympathies for your position. In this case, as sometimes, I think you are a slightly overly rigid MOS-er. My impression, not thoroughly considered. I usually find that I think MOS things are very very useful. WP:WAF, for example, is the answer to many questions. I note that composition titles remain a problem. Prepositions. Now commas.

I do realize I have a rep as a "slightly overly rigid MOS-er", probably for good reasons, and that does limit the sympathy I can expect.

"Neither do I find the WP:INVOLVED allegation is sufficiently substantiated." That's right. There's something to it, the allegation is not outrageous, but after reading many links, I have to say I find the allegation not sufficiently substantiated. I don't find it "untrue", but I don't see enough evidence to agree. The closer was shown to have had related opinions, I could agree the situation is in the border region, but I think the onus for work to substantiate is on the nominator, not me.

I don't recall reading User_talk:Dicklyon#Hoaxing. I'll have another look later ...

and prior objection in the RFC on WP:JR, again, later ...

On both: Maybe, but not egregiously. It may not be ideal, but it is not enough for a reprimand. Also, it is not, per se, a reason to overturn the close, as in the decision, but it does weaken the right to authority in the closing comment. Note that I have already !voted to amend is comment. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

NB. I am repeatedly waylaid on trying to read Nyttend's post, because his first link, http://www.dhr.virginia.gov/registers/Cities/Galax/113-5032_A.G.Pless,Jr.House_2002_Final_Nomination.pdf appears to load very slowly but never completes for me. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

It's a scanned PDF that loads OK for me. Nomination form for "A.G. Pless, Jr. House", with the unspaced initials and unbalanced comma thus. And if he wanted to make a case for trying to follow the exact styling of nomination forms, he could have made that case, rather than accuse me of "hoaxing". Either way, though, he would be taking a position that should prevent him from closing a discussion on exactly that same topic of whether to drop commas from non-biography titles. Dicklyon (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

After more than one hour, I found it loaded. I get the unbalanced comma issue. Do I recall correctly that some people find the ".," "A.G. Pless, Jr., House" ugly? My preference would be to drop the unnecessary period: "A.G. Pless, Jr, House". I would also prefer that people give their children names different to their parents and grandparents.

Indeed, everyone has preferences. I would prefer that these nomination forms be filled in by people who have read Strunk & White, 3rd edition or later, and don't have to use typewriters. Dicklyon (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

https://www.amazon.com/Elements-Style-Third-William-Strunk/dp/0205191584 I shall attempt to buy it. It lists from 1c. In my experience, that is not a good sign for actually receiving it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The 1979 3rd edition was perhaps the first major style guide to recommend dropping the comma before Jr and Sr (with a good explanation of why). Since then, almost all major style guides (including the current 4th edition) agree. Dicklyon (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

"Hoaxing" was a bad word choice. The issue (whether or not the original includes a comma) is not serious enough for the word "hoax", and "hoax" implies intent, for which there is no evidence. No evidence that you intended to mislead readers about an external practice versus intended to apply Wikipedia styles. With regard to the INVOLVED issue, whether he should have closed, I would need to review the time stamps. Did he make the hoax statement long before, shortly before or after the close? That information would affect the decision to wave a WP:TROUT with reference to WP:INVOLVED, but it doesn't actually decide the WP:MR question of whether to overturn the close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Whatever word he chose, he was staking a position on the issue, on 26 Nov 2016, so he shouldn't have closed the discussion on this issue 32 days later. As to the close, I'd request that it be re-closed even if the result is the same, so that his threat to sanction those who opposed the move would be removed; that threat alone should earn him a trout. Dicklyon (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree the threat to sanction was inappropriate. However, it was an empty threat. With that close, he is now forever too INVOLVED to sanction. If we calmly more on to an RfC with an agreed and balanced question, there will be no more talk of sanctions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

"Having expressed these opinions against the guideline and its applicability, how could he think he could close a discussion on exactly that issue, rather than just voting, like others with strongly held views on it did?" Here, you have, at least, my sympathy. Accordingly, as I think I said at WP:MR, I don't think the RM close should be considered binding precedent. As the issue stretched existing guidelines, I think it squarely calls for an RfC, and the RfC will override the RM. For this reason, I would like to set aside the "INVOLVED" allegation and look to an RfC as the way forward.

Now to turn onto one of my pet topics, RfCs: RfCs are frequently poorly set up, and are frequently derailed. Once advertised and responded to, it is very hard to refine the question asked. I have a couple of time suggested that RfCs should require a seconder. I suggest that you engage a comma opponent to agree to the RfC question. In the RM, there is evidence of loaded advertising on both sides, and that sort of behaviour is better avoided. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Smokey, thanks for your support at Talk:Volcanic Explosivity Index; didn't win, but no big deal, just another little corner of specialist capping with rationale like "It's a proper noun because it is commonly capitalized" rather than the stricter test that MOS:CAPS recommends. A bigger problem is that there are still big corners of specialist capping, on topics that are much more commonly lowercase in sources. I usually fix such things as uncontroversial, which usually doesn't get challenged or reverted; but I do a lot, so a few challenges can combine into a lynch mob as at the current AN/I complaint about my work on railway Lines (please don't comment there; this is not canvassing). Obviously, just working hard to improve WP is not enough; I need something like a better approach. Any suggestions? It would be nice if the reputation of the MOS were rehabilitated, and I'm obviously not the one to drive that. Dicklyon (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

And even bd2412's closing statement there seems contrary to guidelines: "The evidence that the term is properly capitalized, while not dispositive of the issue, is reasonable to support the position of those opposed to the move." Or perhaps ignorant of guidelines? Does "properly capitalized" have some special meaning, or does he just mean that if a lot of people do it, then WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS are no longer relevant? Hard to understand. Dicklyon (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

* Dicklyon, response emailed.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

saraiki dialect

After third requested move decision. Still NOT MOVED. Now it is time to restore pre-dispute version of Saraiki dialect [11] in the light of Dispute resolution decision i.e. Revert all Language edits, Saraiki is a dialect as per RFC. [12]. For leade you can add further sources like [13], [14], [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23][24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.188.73.215 (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC Notice

There is a Request for Comment posted at Talk:New York Daily News#Request for Comment. You are being notified as a registered editor who has commented on that article's talk page or in a related move review. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hello SmokeyJoe. 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi.

Regarding this: could you give me some pointers on how to "propose a convincing rationale for your proposal", because you had previously said that my argument was good. Aside from a good argument, what else is there? I'm curious. "Pretty please"? And you might as well close the Rebel Heart move review. I had no idea you had to wait six months to contest a close. There's nothing on the project page about a time limit. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Homeostasis07.

> I had no idea you had to wait six months to contest a close. There's nothing on the project page about a time limit.

It has been a soft rule unwritten for many years, and an intention to document it at WP:RM fell is currently languishing, see Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves/Archive_28#Default_moratoria_on_repeat_RMs.

It is not that there is a hard rule, but waiting is a good idea. See a related essay, Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. The spirit of it applies equally to RMs.

"A good argument"? I think a good argument has these characteristics:

• It summarises all relevant past discussions on the same question. This means that past participants see reference to the things they previously may have considered.
• It explains why the past reasons for the past decision were wrong, especially with regard to facts not considered.
• It clearly indicate which are old arguments/information, and which are new arguments/information. You criticise arguments/information, but do not criticise people.
• You do it all neatly, logically, and concisely.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: Please undelete the talk page

Re your message: I do not see the point of restoring it as doing so would not notify those editors of the RfC. When you first created the talk page, it would not have notified any of the listed users via ping since you did not link the editor's names. Pings can not be considered a completely reliable way of notification. Additionally, since the RfC is being held on an entirely different page, creating the talk page is not very helpful in my opinion. I recommend leaving a user talk page message for those listed if you are concerned about notifying those editors. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Gogo Dodo, I was halfway through the process when you deleted it. I actually don't particularly want to do this stuff in my userspace. Would you please undelete and move it to Wikipedia talk:User categories/Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page, or maybe I should just start afresh. "Pings can not be considered a completely reliable way of notification"? I thought they were, assuming you do it right, meaning linking the main userpage, no more than 30 at a time, in a single post that includes the stand four tildas signature. I thought this was feasible, and I would find posting messages on so many talk pages to be tedious. Not that what I was doing didn't turn out to be tedious. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I have restored it at its original location. Your requested location would not be appropriate as there is no corresponding page in the Wikipedia namespace. If you want to move it, that is up to you. I highly recommend that you add {{G8-exempt}} and then CSD tag it when the RfC is concluded.

Pings are not completely reliable because editors can turn off all notifications of pings under their preferences and you do not know who has done so. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello SmokeyJoe,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 820 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)

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)