Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:24, 25 February 2018

Talk page stalkers are free to respond to any edit made here. I'm fine with general discussion of issues with New Page Patrol and related topics here, even if I have not responded for some reason. If you post here, I will reply here: I typically ping you in reply, but not always. To make sure you see a response, either watchlist this page or check back later. If I haven't responded and some time has passed, please feel free to leave a followup message.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Tools within Rules

• Hi Toni, you may give me some tools; whatever you think, can be suitable; otherwise, thanks too.SwordOfRobinHood (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

SwordOfRobinHood, sorry for the late reply. Just apply for whatever permissions you think you qualify for and will use at WP:PERM, and explain why you feel they would be useful for you. I or another admin will review it there. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for, I was also out of Wiki, very busy. I will do as you suggested. SwordOfRobinHood (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Origen

Hello! I have spent the past month or so rewriting the article Origen and I have just nominated it as a "Good Article." Since the GA nominations page is perpetually backlogged and I do not think that Origen is well-known enough today to attract reviewers on his own, I thought I would endeavor to try to find editors who might be willing to review the article. I do not know how much you know about the Church Fathers, but I was wondering if you would be willing to review it, since I know you regularly edit articles related to Catholicism and you seem to be the most qualified editor in this subject area that I know has been actively involved in reviewing GA nominations. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Heh, about 1000 years before the time period where I start being familiar with things, but I know enough about the Church Fathers that I could probably do a GA review. I won't claim it yet, but I'll take a look in the next few days. Regardless, thanks for your work improving history of Christianity articles. It's one of the areas the encyclopedia still needs very serious work in terms of quality improvement, so I appreciate it anytime anyone tries to bring articles up to GA or FAC in the field​. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It looks like you missed your chance to claim it; another user that I talked to about one of my other nominations just opened reviews for all the articles I have nominated for GA. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Adding SCCAP & APA vetted resources due to contagion effect

Hi, Tony, Thanks for the work that you are doing to edit Misplaced Pages! I am working to try to add list of resources has been reviewed by the Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology and multiple presidents of divisions of the American Psychological Association. The list of resources is being disseminated over multiple professional listservs. This is not medical advice. It is information that is geared towards the general public and is of a public health nature to help people decide if they should seek consultation, and to make it easier for people to access services. It is well-established that exposure to traumatic events in the news can be activating for people who have experienced trauma in the past, so it is appropriate to add these curated sources now. If you check the page traffic, it is obvious that there is a 1000x increase in traffic to these pages in the days after the Florida event. This is precisely why it is in the public interest to add links to the information here. We identified these sites by looking at the 12 most visited pages today. Feel free to contact me on my talk page or by email, eay@unc.edu. I am happy to talk by phone as well. I would like to stress that these are good faith edits, trying to put curated information where the people who would benefit can find it. Thank you again! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Eric, I'll ask Doc James (James, for context, we are discussing edits like this) to weigh in here as he is a medical professional who edits Misplaced Pages in a volunteer capacity as well, and is one of our most prolific medical contributors. My view is that the inclusion of resources is typically outside the scope of a Misplaced Pages article, and while they may be very good mental resources, adding them to articles on school shootings without consensus is a form of soapboxing and giving undue weight to the mental health resources as compared to the rest of the subject. This is especially true if someone has already challenged the inclusion of the text. Also, thanks for your work to integrate Misplaced Pages at Carolina's campus, I appreciate that a lot as an alumnus. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

What the Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology needs to do is create one page that lists all these resources.

Than we add ONE link to this page calling it maybe "Resources from the SCCAP" or whatever.

12 links in the EL section is not appropriate IMO.

That these group of links are being added across multiple articles is concerning. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you! I am grateful for the feedback and guidance. I see the wisdom in Doc James's suggestion. Adding a single internal link to a Misplaced Pages page will be more elegant, less cluttered, and easier to update if a new resource becomes available. More space for framing for different contexts, too. I am going to work on getting a Misplaced Pages page put together. I am also working on getting input from the professional societies about the resources (including the new Misplaced Pages page). I am organizing a "flash" edit-a-thon tomorrow between 1:00 pm and 6:00 pm Eastern (10 am- 3 pm Pacific for Doc James) that will work on building out the page and adding links. Hopefully this will work to funnel a lot of energy and ideas from outside Misplaced Pages into a focused effort that you can help guide. I am grateful for a "middle way" that will let us add links to resources on pages where the traffic is surging after a traumatic event, too, as contagion and activation are well established issues.

If helpful, I can forward any of the correspondence happening outside Misplaced Pages on the professional society lists. It's fascinating to me to see this developing in both the Misplaced Pages and the psychology community. I still have a lot to learn about how to work within the Misplaced Pages community, and I am deeply appreciative of any pointers and assistance.

Looking forward to next steps! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

James would be better at providing feedback for this type of article than I would (he and I work very closely on things involving conflict of interest and promotional editing, but my content work here deals mainly with history of religion, not medical things.) If there is anything that you might need an admin bit for during this or future edit-a-thons, feel free to let me know. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

My proposal was to have the SCCAP create a page that includes all these links and than we could link to this one EL.

Curlie might be interested in such a page of links aswell. We could than link to that. We do not generally host lists of links here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, again, what we are working on is (a) one page, that (b) contains the links, and (c) contains expository text that will describe what types of resources are available and when they are appropriate. I think that the combination of organized links to a variety of resources, organized by intended audience, and with context, will be much better than what we were originally envisioning.

Again, LMK if you want to see emails or drafts. The title of the page is not going to be tied to one society (multiple ones are contributing, and hopefully that also helps allay any concerns about self promotion for any one society). I think that the result coming into focus is a resource that will be available for future crises, and also can start to accrue citations to the reviews and evidence about the different information (using secondary sources! Cochrane, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews or practice parameters preferred :-)). That will come later as soon as possible, but the first pass will most likely be resources and framing. We are doing the best we can. Thanks, and looking forward to next steps....01:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyoungstrom (talk • contribs)

hi

the page was last moved in 2014. Whatever sanctions you were talking about is unrelated.

besides, there are rules you have to follow 1) be objective, nobody's talking about bomb control or anything else control, 2) freedom, if the edit's deemed controversial only by you, you're breaching your power. There's no rule saying a controversial topic cannot be edited.

Plus, is what's currently on there not biased and controversial?

I'm sorry Misplaced Pages is run by people like you. I apologize on behalf of the Wikipedian community.

You clearly don't understand a thing about Misplaced Pages. Don't blabber about your admin status. You Donald John knows much about gov? He's the head of it. 張泰銘 (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Stuff like this has happened before. Yeah, you'll win for now but we'll see whether facts win in the end and bias dies in the end. It's up to the people to wake up. Not me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 張泰銘 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

張泰銘, page moves can be controversial. I have not taken any stance on the content issue. All I did was alert you that discretionary sanctions exist in all areas involving the governmental regulation of firearms. I have no opinion on the content, and my notification of you does not imply any wrongdoing, as the template says. It only informs you that an administrative situation exists on Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions, please feel free to let me know. All the best, TonyBallioni (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

And exactly why would I have to be informed on that? It's unrelated...張泰銘 (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Pretty sure the articles Gun Reform and Gun politics in the United States are related to "governmental regulation of firearms" - TNT 22:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

張泰銘, see above. You also did a page move without discussion for the main article in a discretionary sanctions area. The template only lets you know that this area has been contentious, and that administrators have been given authority to issue sanctions to help limit any potential disruption in the area. Again, if you have any other questions, please let me know. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm asking you clearly: you deemed something as controversial and targeted me to "inform"? Why? 張泰銘 (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Because if I didn't trigger a disruption then why did you do that? Okay you have the power. I'm happy you do. Long as you don't go around using it like drumpf does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 張泰銘 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

張泰銘, you're missing the point entirely. The DS notice was not placed because you did anything wrong. It's simply a notice that there are sanctions in place and that you should read up on those sanctions. Primefac (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

I'm editing in accordance with the rules of WP. Then what does sanctions have to do with me? If I didn't do anything wrong and didn't trigger anything within the sanction, then? Do you see my point? Or did some people worry I was gonna trigger something in that sanction? If so, point it out straight. I don't got time to read a bunch of words.

All my edits did was so people on a cold start on this topic can find link to all the info they would have been lookin for. Instead of digging through the entire complication of the different pages. They can be linked and it helps? Why not. 張泰銘 (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

If you're following the rules then you have nothing to worry about. The DS notice is basically the same as the warning labels they put on electronics to not use them in the bath - if you weren't planning on doing it anyway, you're set, but if you use it in a way that's specifically listed as "not okay" you can't get mad when there are negative repercussions. Primefac (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

This is about viewpoints. When people come in, given this time being, they type in gc on wp, they're likely from the states as literally no one else refers to it as gc. That's why it's important to relate it to other topics like gun violence in the US or gun politics or so on and so forth. I don't really think linking existing pages can cause any controversy. 張泰銘 (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Altho this isn't a label on electronics. I was specifically warned. As in it was sent to me, I mean anyone would be weirded out if they were specifically warned. And I was like so you think I was gonna trigger something, so what is it? Tell me so I won't trigger it. Don't refer me to "please read the rules of wikipedia." Say "you have to say neutral, please read..." See what i mean? Say I put in an ad page, you removed the page and then sent me "please read the rules" but it would be actually helpful to tell me what you were thinking that I have or may trigger. 張泰銘 (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• 張泰銘, I'm sorry. I thought the template was pretty self-explanatory as you have only been working in the gun control area. In terms of Gun control, I have procedurally reverted you after a request at WP:RM/TR, and I have move protected the page as an arbitration enforcement action. If you want to move the page, you are free to seek consensus for such a move by starting a WP:RM. If you don't know how to do that, please feel free to post your reasoning for a move here, and I can start one for you procedurally. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much!!

Hey Tony, just wanted to drop by to say that I truly appreciate the input regarding the adding of links to the various shooting pages! We were grateful for the input. :) We'll be sure to drop you a talk message before making these edits! Appreciate you seeing that we were making these edits in good faith. Keep rocking! Ongmianli (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 張泰銘 (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

張泰銘, you're free to discuss the proposed changes in the requested move discussion I opened on the talk page for you. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for

—I missed a trick there; of course, leave a note to someone one has just mentioned. Odd circumstances though I have to say. Take care! >SerialNumber54129 19:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Heh, my dear integer, I only just hate seeing redlink talk pages. I'm sure CheckUsers are interested in that account anyway, and after talking to one I've blocked it. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Excellent :) should learn to trust the spidey sense a little more! Cheers! >SerialNumber54129 19:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:CBAN for Krajoyn

On Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard, I have started a discussion of a potential CBAN of Krajoyn which you might have been involved in.

The discussion is linked at WP:CBAN for Krajoyn. Iggy (Swan) 19:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Recent block

I'm just wondering: why did you block SallyPlease as a sock? You seem to not even know who the account is a sock of. That they edited someone's RFA seems like a pretty thin reason, all by itself, to justify saying that the account is a blockable sock. Their edit seemed pretty benign, too. Perhaps there's something I'm missing, though, and I'm certainly all ears if you want to explain. Every morning (there's a halo...) 00:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Well they did so after talking to a CU so I'm guessing there is something you are missing. Something that probably meets DENY if tags weren't applied to the user page in question. --Majora (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Everymorning, I discussed this with DeltaQuad, and she told me to go ahead and block. I believe DoRD did a second round of checks and issued CU blocks to other accounts. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for the quick answer. Every morning (there's a halo...) 01:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there were a number of disruptive accounts that needed blocking besides this one. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Futher to this could be—just could be— >SerialNumber54129 12:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

CU says likely a different user. Not enough technically to block it, I’m afraid. Might be worth tagging as an SPA. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Was just fixing that error, and then saw you did - instinctively went to press "THANK" on it for you! — xaosflux 04:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Heh, and that is the only time I will edit the MediaWiki namespace :). TonyBallioni (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Clearing AIV

Probably best to let declined AIV reports sit a little longer, should any new activity arise. Plus ideally some reporters will check back and learn. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Amorymeltzer. I do both, but have found that personally that clearing is easiest when reviewing in order to avoid conflicting with other admins and also to avoid complaints about there being a backlog. SQL was actually the person who recommended the practice of clearing to me, and I liked his reasoning. I can see the benefits of both sides. I'm not particularly concerned about the complaints, though, and if anyone complained, I'd just suggest they rereport if the vandalizing continued. Personally, I'd rather clear them quickly and get a note on my talk than not clear them and have someone complaining about a backlog because no one bothered. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I hear ya. I think the larger issue is that one sysop's decline is frequently another's block. I've been slowly building up toward starting a discussion somewhere, don't really want the stink, but it sends mixed messages to reporters. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed - I've done this in a few cases to discourage bad habits of reporting things to AIV that absolutely don't belong there - because someone will eventually put in the time to investigate and block it, reinforcing/rewarding the editor's choice to make a bad report (hillariously once this was TonyBallioni himself). AIV should be more of a '911'/ clear and easy emergency thing. SQL 02:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

(tps) To be honest, and just thinking out loud, I wish that the bot would clear declined reports as well, or perhaps moved them to a "recently declined" subpage for a while before clearing them. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I think Amorymeltzer's suggestion here is good. Make it like RFPP or PERM. I'd prefer a relatively quicker clearing for the reasons SQL pointed out, but to be fair, he and I are probably more on the decline-prone end of the spectrum at AIV, and I can see why others would prefer a logner period. I think one of the issues with the bot thus far has been that from what I can tell, all the people who maintain the AIV bots are basically not active anymore, so we'd likely have a new "AIVArchiveBot" or something of the sort. I've bugged a few botops about it, but will try knocking around again in the next few days. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

There are a LOT of things I wish an AIV bot would do. SQL 02:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines

Thanks for this. I completely missed it. Bishonen | talk 11:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC).

No problem, Bish. I assumed as much and didn’t want to make a big deal out of it because of the previous dramah. Probably should have asked you first, but didn’t think you would mind . Always great to have you on my talk. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Unblock

Hi, would you mind unblocking this IP? IP addresses should usually never be indefinitely blocked, and besides, the reason given for the indefinite block would only be convincing for a temporary block. Thanks! ToThAc (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Have you talked to Jimfbleak about it? He was the blocking admin. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. ToThAc, isp now unblocked Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Quick question

If an editor challenges/removes a block of text from an article that is under 1-RR/consensus to restore, and another editor reverts that removal without getting consensus to restore, is that a violation of DS that requires consensus to restore a challenged edit, or is that ok as that editor's 1RR? The way I see it, an editor can revert once as long as that 1st revert is not restoring a challenged edit. Right or wrong? 23:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, El C has written a quick and dirty guide to those questions at WP:CRP. I think that page deals with the question in a pretty straightforward way, but if it doesn't answer the question or if I'm missing something, let me know. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Ohhh, my head hurts. In the following sequence:

1. Editor 1 removes text, Editor 2 reverts/restores - that is 1 RR for Editor 2, or not❓ and Editor 1 must get consensus to add back remove it again, right?
2. Editor 3 adds text - all cool (breaks the consecutive sequence of editor 1) ✅
3. Editor 1 adds text in a different section on article, Editor 2 reverts it - does that not count as a 2 RR vio for Editor 2 who now has 1 restore and 1 revert.
4. Editor 1 removes another block of text - is that now a 2 RR vio for Editor 1? Editor 2 reverts/restores. Editor 2 is now at 2RR vio, or is it ok to revert/restore as many times as needed without a vio? Yes, no?
5. Editor 3 removes text that Editor 2 restored in #1 - is that a vio? In other words, if more than 2 editors are going back & forth, can a 3rd editor revert the material Editor 2 restored?
6. Editor 3 reverts Editor 2's revert in #3, adding back Editor 1 text - is that a vio?

In real life editing, it's not always a simple 1-2. It can be a 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1 if you get what I mean. That's where I get confused. If editor 2 can do unlimited "restores" of editor 1's removals in a 24 hr period, that invites WP:STONEWALLING and promotes WP:OWN. Please feel free to interperse your comments within the applicable numbers in the sequence. 01:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to respond to this later tonight or tomorrow. Had an early morning today and not much sleep, so I'm a bit too foggy to delve into DS-land now. Just wanted you to know I wasn't ignoring it :) TonyBallioni (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, the situation above is complicated, and I might be misunderstand you, so I'll try to respond the best I can, with the disclaimer that admins typically look at the totality of the situation when determining these things (i.e. is it normal editing or a revert).

1. This would not be a revert for the person who removes the text if the text is in general just there and you can't tell without spending an inordinate amount of time who added it. That's normal editing. Reverts are typically seen as undoing specific edits, in whole or part, not just removing text. Restoring the text by editor 2 would be a revert.
2. Not a revert, all good.
3. Editor 2 would have two reverts now, yes.
4. It depends on if the text was a revert or just normal editing. Editor 1 hasn't reach a revert yet in this scenario if all this is is normal editing and not reverting specific edits. It looks like editor 2 is on 3 reverts now.
5. At this point, it's getting confusing in hypotheticals, but if I'm reading it correctly, editor 3 restored an edit that was challenged via reversion (the removal of text). This is in violation of the consensus required provision. The best thing at this point is to talk about it, because it is getting into a multi-party edit war.
6. I'm not going to count vios here, because even reading this scenario, I'm getting confused as to who did what :) I'd likely full protect if it wasn't full protected already as it appears to be a multi-party edit war, but that's just my personal way of handling things. Other admins might view it differently.

Again, so much depends on the context of the specific article in question. In general, the rule of thumb should be "if in question, don't revert." Talking on the talk page is always preferred :) TonyBallioni (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, what you described is what I was thinking - yes, it's confusing but it's what we're dealing with day-to-day in the trenches, and it can all take place in less than an hour.😳 The DS warning in edit view states: "must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article" but editors are misinterpretating that statement; e.g. editor 1 removes a block of text, challenging it as noncompliant with NPOV in a BLP (policy considers the 2 inseparable). Editor 2 reverts (restores) the text without getting consensus first. Per the 1RR-consensus in the banner, the vio would be editor 2 restoring (by reverting) challenged material without getting consensus first. Drumroll, please...here comes the confusion...Misplaced Pages:Consensus_required#Removal contradicts what the banner states. WP:CRP overrides 1RR-consensus and encourages status quo stonewalling by giving Editor 2 (the reverting editor) the advantage in both Addition and Removal. The result we're getting is that Editor 2 controls the article by not allowing new information to be added or any existing material to be removed. See what I mean? I'm pinging El C regarding this issue and would very much appreciated his input regarding the latter. I think it's important that we get clarity or we're going to lose more editors to TB and blocks. 14:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, the point of the restriction is to promote the status quo. It's about challenged edits not challenged material. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, promote article stability/reduce edit warring which means promoting the status quo. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

That works well for long established articles that are stable, such as GAs and FAs, but not so well for political and other controversial topics that are not, especially BLPs where NPOV is at issue. Then it can quickly become Misplaced Pages:Status_quo_stonewalling or OWN which is disruptive behavior. It also gives paid/COI/advocacy editors an advantage, which can be harmful to the project.

In cases of DS 1RR-consensus only, when a standing edit is challenged and removed based on a policy vio, it should not be restored until after consensus has been reached. If a new edit is added and later reverted, the editor who reverted should be responsible for providing a PAG-based edit summary to justify the revert, which eliminates the "IDONTLIKEIT" revert. If no policy is cited, the editor who added it should be free to revert once. Then if removed again by a 3rd editor, consensus would be required. Each revert should count as 1RR.

Adding:

Editor 1 adds

Editor 2 reverts (1RR) - provides policy based edit summary

Editor 1 reverts (1RR)

Editor 3 reverts (1RR)

Editor 1 needs consensus to add.

Removal:

Editor 1 removes standing text (1RR)

Editor 2 restores text (1RR)

Editor 3 removes text (1RR)

Consensus is needed to restore.

What am I not seeing that prevents us from doing it that way? 17:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Is this paraphrasing too close?

Not asking for revdel here because the problem is that quotation marks were removed without sufficient changes to the text. Assuming I'm reading it correctly. Am I crazy?

The quotes were not "too long or numerous" to begin with, IMO, just that without inline attribution it looked like we were attributing them to the wrong person, so I don't think having the quotes would be a copyright problem, but I suspect not having them in quotation marks might be.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to look at this later today. If I don't get back, please feel free to poke me. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri 88, yeah, that's too close. I've fixed it and revdel'd. Margin1522, it might be easier to include attribution to the source in the sentence if the concern is that the reader will think someone other than the source quoted said it. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. That would be wise – with a Japanese source it's usually better to assume that quote marks mean paraphrase. Maybe someone will do that. I added one quote that I was able to verify in the original UN document, but right now I don't feel like doing much more with this article (having been mocked on the Talk page).– Margin1522 (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry...

... but what about this? The source says The prime minister explained that the word was used initially by Japanese facing food shortages in the past when they told their children to make sure there were no leftovers and our article currently says In 2005, Japan's Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi explained that Mottainai was initially used in the past by people facing food shortages, they telling their their children there were no leftovers. The only paraphrasing is inserting the name of the prime minister, replacing "the word" with the word in question (not italicized or placed in quotes; if I had copyedited it without examining the source I might have accidentally changed it back to "the word") and some ungrammatical stuff at the end. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Suzanne Olsson close

I note that in closing the Suzanne Olsson AfD as Delete, you applied a administrator access requirement for recreation. Given that once before the subject's page was deleted for lack of sufficient notability, and the subject herself then recreated a whitewashed version as Suzanne M. Olsson, and when that was deleted because she had a topic ban at the time, she used a sock puppet to create it again as Suzanne Marie Olsson. If the goal in applying the creation-protection of the main namespace was to ensure that we don't have to go through the same cycle yet again, then these other two namespaces need to be similarly protected. Agricolae (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

​ Done TonyBallioni (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

SPI

You may wish to see this SPI, given your extensive knowledge about the user-work-styles etc.:)~ Winged Blades 07:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Godric, yeah, I saw it. Bbb23 was right to close. No evidence there (and I looked through the contribs myself before he closed it.) TonyBallioni (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Please don't.

With regards to this, you are a brand new admin of well less than six months. Nominators should be experienced and respected admins with an excellent track record. Bluntly, you do not fit that profile. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no requirement that nominators be experienced admins, or admins, or experienced. As I'm sure you well know, there have been self nominations which have succeeded, and nominations by some of our most experienced users with access above sysop which have failed. To be blunt, I'm not sure it's necessary to be so blunt when sharing what is essentially only your personal opinion. GMG 12:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, first, you will notice that I never said I was going to offer to nominate Lourdes. I said I was intending to email her. That email was going to encourage her to run, and explicitly encourage her to find an experienced nominatior. It likely would have included the line “I’d be fine nominating, but I’m sure you can find someone much better than me.” Also, in terms of nominations in general Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Joe Roe was the first successful RfA after my own. Joe did all the heavy lifting there to be sure, but to my knowledge at least, my being a nominator doesn’t seem to have been held against him. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Tony, with the most substantial tenure, experience, contributions and faith of the community you have here, you'd be the best nominator even if you weren't an administrator. I'm not quite sure why rndude wrote what he did, but I don't agree with his understanding of who can be nominators, and I'm confident the community too doesn't. Lourdes 12:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't !vote on JoeRoe's adminship as I don't know anything about them. I don't vote on editors RfAs I know nothing about, or where I don't have a strong opinion one way or another. E.g. I don't know Lourdes, so I'm not voting on their RfA. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Nominators should be experienced and respected admins with an excellent track record 100% not true. Nominators can and should be anyone, and have frequently been non-sysop users. In fact, I think it'd be better if more nominators weren't sysops. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd be less bothered by a non-sysop nom, than a fresh admin nom. It's the fresh admin bit that bothers me here. I'm not saying TonyBallioni is a bad admin, just that a fresh admin pulling in new admins impacts on my view negatively. Very negatively. I'm just one person though. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I can assure you that you are in the very small minority on this one. Nihlus 13:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

"Nominators should be experienced and respected admins with an excellent track record" smacks somewhat of an attack on Tony's record. Anyway, that sort of statement is probably better off in a personal opinion essay than as an accusatory statement of fact on an editor's talk page. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 13:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Meh, I know how WikiPolitics works. There are certainly better nominators out there than me. I'll be the absolute first person to admit that, and frequently do when people ask me about RfA. The statement about new admins not being nominators isn't really true though, at least within the last 18 months or so. After his own RfA, TNT did a several successful nominations, and those seem to have turned out fine. I think you can have a good discussion as to the impact the choice of nominator(s) has on an RfA, but generally, being a newer admin doesn't seem to have a huge negative impact unless that admin also has a bad reputation elsewhere (which who knows, I might. There are certainly people who don't like me around.) Anyway, all the best. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'm not interested in WikiPolitics. That's why I addressed you directly. I chose to present my concern to you, rather than drop it on a talk page (I mean talk page other than your own). – And to you. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I know of few who fit the desirable profiles and combined qualities as Tony and Lourdes, both of whom I've found to be knowledgeable, patient, willing collaborators who served well in the trenches, and with the kind of fortitude and humility we seek in our administrators. Tony has proven to be an excellent admin right out of the box, and I have no doubt that we'll see the same from Lourdes. We could use 100 more just like them. 13:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)    

Agreed. Mr rnddude is entitled to his opinion, but like others here I don't share it. Tony and others should be positively encouraged to nominate suitable candidates, as indeed Lourdes has proved to be, because by all accounts we are facing an admin shortfall these days. If I understand correctly, the concern here is that having gained the bit, Tony now plans to to head-hunt and recruit other admins sympathetic to some hypothetical nefarious aim of his, and wreak havoc on our wonderful encyclopedia. But even if this highly bizarre hypothesis were actually true, a nomination does not an automatic admin make. The community would vet and scrutinise each nominee as they always do, and the candidate would be promoted or otherwise on their own merits.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, if there is such a thing as an admin shortfall, then it's not resolved by stopping nominations...if the editor (not admin) is experienced, that's all that will matter. In any case, potential admin recruits know not to accept noms off anyone but: a noob making a nom will—almost always—be declined and G6'd sharpish. >SerialNumber54129 18:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Uploaded files

Hello, you said yesterday that you were interested in Catholicism. Well, I am very interested too, and I have just uploaded these files, but I'm not sure where to put them. Could you also show me some articles about Catholicism that would need work? Thanks. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I mainly do early modern Catholic history (conclaves in particular are my thing on Misplaced Pages). Gerda Arendt does a lot of work with German hymns and is one of our most prolific music contributors. She’d probably be able to give better advice than me on this topic. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @L293D: The first two of those files already have articles, so they're the obvious choice—and would benefit from their addition; and, having three other files with no articles means...they have to be written! Excellent results all round-Go for it! >SerialNumber54129

Do you think they would be notable enough? L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't really know; I've tried to avoid them since they were the scourge of my schooldays  :) but, tbh, I don't really see why some (like the ones we already have) would be, and these not. Especially the old Victorian ones, as they have their own historical tradition. A good way of finding out, L293D, is to do a Google search—but narrow it down to Googlebooks. That way, you omit the cruft, as it were. Like this, for example. >SerialNumber54129 16:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me, - perhaps The C of E knows more about English hymns, even if not Catholic. You can search within Misplaced Pages for these titles, which may appear in lists of songs, or as some lyricist's work, where a sound file would also be good. A Protestant German example of how to include it is "Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Holy, Holy, Holy and Lift High the Cross already have their own pages. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)