User talk:FOARP


Eggplant/aubergine


Hello, I see you moved "Eggplant" to "Aubergine/Eggplant". Though of course this plant and vegetable have different names in different parts of the world, WP policy says that we choose one of the variants and stick with it. Please see WP:TITLE and WP:ENGVAR. --macrakis (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Gloster Hill


You tagged this for a merger; I’ve replied here. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

July 2011


Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Where's Waldo? (comic strip) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Steamroller Assault (talk) 06:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Catalan independence


Hey, very minor heads-up here. I've taken the liberty to adjust the quoted titles and move target in your request to reflect that actual, correct capitalization (e.g. "Welsh independence", not "Welsh Independence"). --213.196.210.189 (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Catalan independence


Hi FOARP, and thanks for closing discussion at Talk:Catalan independentism#Requested move. As you may know, RM has a big backlog, so non-admin closures help move the process along. You're probably ok in this case, but it's generally not considered appropriate to close your own RM, however. See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure for full instructions. Also, when you close an RM as move, you'll want to use the {{db-move}} template if you can't do so yourself. I've done that for you in this case. Thanks again. --BDD (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28


Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shark Island Extermination Camp, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ  Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: User talk:BDD#Move discussion closing?


Hello, FOARP. You have new messages at BDD's talk page.
Message added 18:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for February 7


Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hu Xijin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese government (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ  Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 14


Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maji Maji Rebellion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matumbi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ  Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

File:GlobalTimeslogo.png missing description details


Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 04:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Scramble for Africa


Hi FOARP, Thanks for the addition to Scramble for Africa, looks good. Do you have some reliable sources you can add to your section? The main articles that are referred to lack inline references too, making it hard to verify the content at the moment. Thanks in advance, let me know if you need help! Pim Rijkee (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Yeah, the rebellions against German rule were an important part of the Scramble for Africa and deserve mention, but the sources on them are a bit thin on the ground. I was hoping that the refs in the main articles might be enough, but having looked at them they need a lot of work also. The Herero Wars page was re-established after too many people complained that a re-direct to page on the German genocide of the Herero obscurred that fact that it had been a war, but it wasn't much more than a stub when it was merged with the Herero genocide page back in 2006. The Maji-Maji rebellion page is slightly better, but still not all that great.
I'm finding The Revolt of The Herero by Jon M. Bridgman a good source for the Herero Wars, but I don't have a good one for Maji-Maji - I remember Pakenham's The Scramble For Africa had a chapter on it but I don't have my copy of it with me. Do you have it? FOARP (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Had a quick look if I coulf find something, but I'm not well known with the topic, honestly. Hope you find something to add! Regards, Pim Rijkee (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation


Template:Herero Wars, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Template-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

July 2013


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to ARA General Belgrano may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • service. She was decommissioned from the US Navy (USN) after World War II ended, in July 1946<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.shippingtimes.co.uk/item530_general_belgrano.htm |title=A Brief History of

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 4


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

Kristian Hamon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to French, Breton and Occupation
Communist Party of Jamaica (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Chris Lawrence
Guadeloupe Communist Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Capesterre

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12


Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of the Falkland Islands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Graf Spee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ  Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

AN Notice


Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Topic Ban Removal Request". Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!


As a thank you for motivating people across the project to do more good work. Happy editing!

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15


Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Singapore Day, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Asian and Caucasian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ  Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Shark Island


The discussion and vote was about the article name, which remains unchanged. As to other less used descripitions of the camp it has been named both death camp and extermination camp by some authors(and as death camp by German soldiers themselves. The Nature of Heritage: The New South Africa by Lynn Meskell on Page 1872 calls it as world's first extermination camp the world's first extermination camp on Shark Island. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks


Your comment at WP:AN about not rising to baiting by my detractors was a kick to the head I really needed. Not rising is working out much better. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 18:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Looking forward to seeing your topic-ban removal request - just so long as you stick to the positive side of the argument (i.e., you've done good work on Wiki), I don't see how they could keep it in place. FOARP (talk) 11:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete discussion


Hello,

Here is a link to delete discussion. All the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Talk:Kosovo independence precedent says "This page was nominated for deletion on 5 April 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.".
  • Also, I contested your turning this article into redirect and presented arguments at the talk page (diff)
If you still believe this article should not exist feel free to nominate it for deletion. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Runemaster (game)


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

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

A tag has been placed on Runemaster (game) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 15:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Hearts of Iron IV packshot.jpg


Thanks for uploading File:Hearts of Iron IV packshot.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12


Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Axis leaders of World War II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fascist Italy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ  Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 2


Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Military budget of the Russian Federation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chechen Wars (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ  Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Song Zuying


Hi, I don't know anything about the topic, I just saw sourced info being removed, but there are possible WP:BLP issues. Please check the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Song_Zuying. Regards. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 8


Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sweden in World War I, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lapland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ  Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 8 May 2014 (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) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10


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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!


Hello, FOARP. 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)

Deleted. Have a nice day.

Disambiguation link notification for May 11


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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message


Hello, FOARP. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Catalan_Republic_(2017)#Merge


Hi After the AfD, the merging have been done, so could you close the request merge ? --Panam2014 (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Somalia


Hello @FOARP, I see that you're well established editor. I'm writing this comment to let you know that i've made a change on the Somalia article, i have reinstated the map as it was before showcasing the whole of Somalia. The reason why i have done this is that, the disputed nature of Somaliland is mentioned in the same article itself, the internationally recognised borders of Somalia includes the whole territory including Somaliland. So for this reason it would not be a fair representation of the Somalia article to show Somaliland as disputed because then we would also need to show the disputed nature of Catalonia in Spain, but the Spain article includes the whole of sovereign Spain including Catalonia and rightly so. The same way the whole internationally recognised borders of Somalia should be shown on the map. You are correct in highlighting the disputed nature of Somaliland but as i said this is talked about in the very same article. If you scroll down the article it speaks about Somaliland being defacto autonomous self governing region and so on. Anyways, if we are going to show a map that is not consistant with the internationally recognised Somalia border, then we should talk about this on the talk page and reach some kind of understanding. Thanks Pepsmiand (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Catalonia is controlled by the Spanish government, Somaliland is not controlled by the Somalian government. This is the essential difference here. Nothing else really matters. It is standard practice in country articles that areas currently not controlled by the central government are should be shown in a different colour - look at Georgia (Country), China, Ukraine, Serbia etc. FOARP (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

FOARP (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is - I have no idea, but I am currently at the Shard in London and it is bloody foolish to block the IP address of an entire office/building in the centre of London. AFAIK no proxy is used here.

Accept reason:

See below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

46.235.152.40 , at the very least registered users should still be able to edit. FOARP (talk) 10:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

That's normally the case with an IP block, though not necessarily with proxies or other services that hide the originating IP address. The range 46.235.152.0/24 is currently blocked with the explanation "Blue Coat Systems, a proxy service from Symantec" by @NinjaRobotPirate: who might be able to help further. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, and the block does not appear to exclude logged-in users as far as I can see - I guess we need to wait for NinjaRobotPirate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm logged in, just tried editing - nope, definitely can't edit anything, I can see the source-code but not edit it, and there's a big notice saying I'm blocked from editing. FOARP (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Ah, OK, we'll have to wait for the expert to come along. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a hard block, which does affect logged-in editors. We could try turning it into an anon-only block to see what happens. There was some anon vandalism coming from here, but if business customers are also being routed through here, maybe it'd be best to try to avoid collateral damage. Give me a second, and you should be able to edit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15


Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Dunbar (1650), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Preston (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ  Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

What a delight to see such competent support for a change


With plenty of references to MacCullagh ellipsoid FOARP has exceeded my expectations. I have been battling a few quite primitive and lazy editors, so I much appreciate the difference your presence made. I'll be happy to return your favor. Cocorrector (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message


Hello, FOARP. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

weird sideshow


Hello FOARP: Just a note to say I collapsed that back and forth with the supposed article subject over on the Adam Coley AfD. You can of course reverse that if you think it's better uncollapsed. It was getting a bit surreal and. I think it's a conscious effort to disrupt editors whose primary focus is not Adam Cooley. It all certainly looks like WP:DUCK to me.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Right thing to do. It just looks like an attempt to disrupt the process. FOARP (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
It looks more and more to me like paid editing.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 09:11, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Daily Mail !ban


Hi just to let you know I would be interested in participating in a discussion about reopening the !ban discussion. I just want to make it clear that I have no COI or desire to see the image of the DM cleaned up. I think it is a trashy bit of journalism but that doesn't make it a generally unreliable source in my opinion. Probably not much more than the high brow broadsheets. The decision to ban it (sod the "this is not a ban" hypocrisy let's call a spade a spade) was taken on totally subjective opinions from users that was based on anecdotes and specifically chosen examples. I personally feel this is not a good image to give Wikipedia where a handful of editors can effectively prevent 122 years of journalism read by millions of people every day from being used as a source. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Tuidang Movement AfD


It didn't work. There's no AfD page. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Had to take a break in the middle of creating it but it should be up there now. FOARP (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

neutral presentation


I know. I did rather chuckle when I saw that. Granted, while precautions were taken to minimise the initiators framing advantage, it wasn't entirely offset, but that's only fair considering the balancing advantage held by the status quo consensus. The 7 day voting delay should easily be sufficient for others to prepare their arguments. Contrast with how other high impact RfCs have played out. The initiator lines up 3 closing admins in advance using back channels, and colludes off wiki to prepare arguments. One account opens the RfC with immediate voting. A 2nd account posts a long persuasive vote that has obviously been polished for days, with all the hall marks of being composed by a 2nd rank PR exec. Hence the initiators have a massive framing advantage, and the RfC almost inevitably closes the way they want.
In this case, despite the overwhelming evidence based case, there's a high chance it will fail, or even be procedurally closed, as we haven't greased the wheels by playing the social game. That said, it was seeing folk like Andy, Dom & yourself taking an interest that made me think it was worth giving this a go. It may help a bit that several of the folk against the ban are clearly not right wingers. I see you are an editor who likely has left/liberal sympathies and possibly a fellow Londoner. Huh, perhaps you are even attending the big champagne socialism event tomorrow evening near Holborn? If so, please say hello if you recognise me from my user page pic, always good to meet fellow wikipedians. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
As a patent attorney I do sometimes get down Holborn way (CIPA is there) but if there is a champagne socialism event there I must have missed the invite. Actually I was a member of the conservative party up until the October 2016 party conference - citizens of nowhere was the last straw for me - so I might count as a liberal but certainly not as a lefty. FOARP (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I thought you might be the type to join a party. We get a lot of lawyers at Labour party CS, QCs from Blackstone chambers and folk like that. Interesting, I really liked May's 2016 conference speech. Lots of genuine seeming concern for those who are struggling thanks to good Nick Timothy. I didn't mind 'citizens of nowhere', at the time I thought it was a back hand way to encourage positive patriotism. Took me a while to see why it was validly interpreted as anti semetic and an attack on immigrants. Sometimes it's hard to anticipate how others will see things, hence partly why the RfC has been so disappointing thanks to how I framed it. Sorry about that. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Nah, I honestly think that was straight-up motivated reasoning and even if you had put it all in a support !vote then something else would have been picked on. FOARP (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

RFC


You should not really alter another users comments, especially not an opening RFC comment.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The rules of the RFC state that it is OK to edit the arguments. You have stated that section include arguments. I edited those arguments. Those edits were necessary to remove something that some editors seemed to believe was derogatory of them, and it was necessary to delete them in order to enable the RfC to go ahead. Feydhuxtable does not object to the edit I made, instead he had thanked me for my edit. FOARP (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. I was just about to remove the two sentences myself when I read your objection to them Slatersteven. I didn't mean to cast doubt on the original RfC, sorry if it came across like that. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
You are not allowed to edit other users comments (see WP:TPO), an RFC's rules does not trump policy. The fact the user has now given you permission (after the event) does not alter the fact you should not have done it without first being given permission.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
OK Steve, I'll try to remember not to be a bad boy in future. God forbid that I might remove wording that people object to as derogatory whilst trying to close the argument before a decision is even rendered, and then be targeted by criticism by the same people for removing the wording they said was derogatory. FOARP (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Daily Mail


Hi I just thought I'd let you know I'm stepping back from the DM thing. Sadly I think that there is no way that we will ever see that ban overturned. The voters in the survey basically are all saying the same thing that it is too early to see a change since the new editor has taken over but noone is ready to say how they would mesure the change. The whole thing was based on anecdotal evidence so it is purely a "I just don't like it" vote. I feel like Don Quixote because it is impossible to counter systemic bias of this kind. Mainly because the paper is not the kind of paper anyone here would admit to liking because it is very low brow and the only people who are attacking the ban are like you and I and saying that don't actually like the paper. It doesn't matter how few upheld complaints there are how many awards they win it is paying the price of nasty editorial opinion choices. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I think we can pick this one up again in 6 months to a year and stand a better chance of winning. I agree that the real reason for the ban is simply pure prejudice. FOARP (talk) 06:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
So you both reckon the Daily Mail is a fine and dandy source, and it's only banned because of leftwing systemic bias? I challenge you both; find a story that is only carried or covered by the DM, and none of the other media cover it. Then ask yourself if it is essential for Wikipedia to carry the information. If you can do this, you won't have to continually lose this argument. --MarchOrDie (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I challenge you to find a source for, say, some 1920's play that is a contemporary Daily Mail review, and then really accept that it is reasonable for you not to be able to use that article because of a ban based on present-day prejudices.
The presumption is that a corpus of work produced by professional journalists for more than a century is not something we should cut off lightly without real evidence. No evidence, beyond anecdotes sourced from blogs, was produced on that thread to show that the DM is in any way worse than the dozens of other tabloid publications which remain unblocked. Instead the evidence shows the opposite.
So yeah, I don't think reasonable people, analysing the situation objectively, would have arrived at this ban. Thank god people of the same censorious mindset as yourself keep losing the argument in relation to other publications - it looks like you're not going to win against the Sun, for example. FOARP (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I didn't say systemic leftwing bias I just said systemic bias because it is a lowbrow publication. The ban was taken on anecdotal evidence and a vote where most of the votes showed a certain hatred for the paper. But it has also won a lot of awards as per Daily_Mail#Received. The argument for banning it is that it is not generally reliable, this is not supported by the independent watchdog. I believe that this amounts to censorship based on personal dislike of a source. No one voted to ban it on the basis of objective arguments. I saw a lot of "kill it with fire" "hell yes ban it" votes on the original RFC. I asked a number of editors on the survey who voted not yet how we will be able to measure the improvement of the paper and no-one has been able to tell me. The argument that they can be effectively banned because they do not have a story that noone else has or will carry is, I am afraid, ridiculous because it is the very nature of news in big circulation newspapers that they all finish by talking about the same things! Do the same thing for The Times that has a worse record for upheld complaints at IPSO and I guarantee you will not find a single story that is not reported elsewhere too. I personally think this blanket ban reflects extremely badly on the encyclopedia. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
User:FOARP, have you even read the consensus you are vituperating about? It might be an idea. Your hypothetical example (shame you could not find a real one), "some 1920's play" is already mentioned as being potentially exempt from the deprecation (it isn't actually a ban). It's also rather disappointing that when politely challenged, you immediately resort to ad hominems like people of the same censorious mindset as yourself. I wouldn't agree that holding out for the best sources is in any way "censorious". And I'm not aware of having expressed an opinion on The Sun. Are you mixing me up with someone else? User:Domdeparis, you misunderstand the nature of my challenge. I'll repeat it; if you can find a modern subject that is only covered by the Daily Mail, and make a proper argument that this source's exclusion genuinely damages the project, I promise to reconsider my views. Can you do better than User:FOARP did? --MarchOrDie (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

that is a ridulous argument for banning a publication and yes it is a ban because WP:DAILY MAIL says " As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles." With wording like that you can remove it every single time. If it can't be used for notability or a source what can it be used for? Why not ban all tabloids and all spread sheets except for the guardian because I am sure they cover everything. If you need multiple sources for notability and the info is carried only in the Times and The Daily Mail what do we do? Have a look at an article I wrote called The Horse (poem) I wanted to add the daily mail as a source for something a well known television journalist wrote about this poem as part of the legacy section. It was removed citing this RFC. Do we really think that the paper fabricated an article by Alistair Stewart ? I added it back again and it will probably get removed again. And once again how do we measure if the paper has improved with the new editor? Since when can a source simply be banned because they are not the sole source for certain information? Dom from Paris (talk) 00:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Dom. The idea that this isn't a ban fails WP:DUCK - it walks like a ban, talks like a ban, everyone calls it a ban except when they are trying to pretend it isn't one, including reliable sources like the Guardian. I was recently in an AfD discussion for Double-nosed Andean tiger hound (about as uncontroversial a topic as you can possibly get) where the fact that one of the sources sustaining notability was the Daily Mail was used as a deletion argument, since that reference apparently didn't count. Never mind that the BBC independently reported the same thing. I see editors sweep in to remove Daily Mail references when it is simply one of 2-3 references all independently saying the same thing, obviously without even reading the article or the reference to examine if what they were doing was necessary.
I think there's too many editors nowadays who no longer work on starting new articles (or, in some cases, have never started an actual new article in all their years on this site) and have no idea how difficult it can be to find a source for an obscure (but still potentially notable) topic. To effectively bar editors completely from using a newspaper that has been published daily for 122 years, and which people like Roy Hattersley, William Le Queux, Quentin Letts, Auberon Waugh and so-forth wrote for, when it may be one of only two sources that describes a non-BLP, uncontroversial topic in sufficient detail to confer notability, is simply vandalism. FOARP (talk) 08:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not aware that anyone has suggested banning The Times; do you have a source for that, User:Domdeparis? User:FOARP, I took a look at that AfD discussion; if you're maintaining that the double-nosed Andean tiger hound [is] ... as uncontroversial a topic as you can possibly get, when the consensus of the discussion was to merge it, there maybe isn't anything for us to discuss. That seems like an outlandish statement. Are you sure you stand by it? --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I suppose I don't have much to discuss with people who feel no need at all to substantiate their own position in evidence. And not to put too fine a point on it, you came here, so the flouncy "We have nothing more to discuss" attempt at exiting an argument you are losing is always going to come off as somewhat contrived. FOARP (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Ah, you're winning? I hadn't realised. I won't unwatch just yet then. I can't wait to see your winning argument. A good start will be to answer some of the questions. --MarchOrDie (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I have a well-evidence position based on surveys and regulatory reports, you have anecdotes reported in blogs. This is not a contest. FOARP (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I have? Now I know you're thinking of someone else. I've never referred to anything from a blog. I don't even read blogs. You were going to find me a real example of the harm this deprecation is supposedly causing to Wikipedia and its readers. You brought me the double-nosed Andean tiger hound. If that is the best you can come up with, I think the project is safe for now. Is it? --MarchOrDie (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Simple questions for you MoD. What yard stick was used to say generally unreliable so that we can use the same when reviewing? Now the editor has been replaced how do we measure any improvements which is a sine qua non condition for a lot of people to review the question? Dom from Paris (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Simple answer for you, Dom from Paris. Editorial judgement. For both. Ever read the Mail? --MarchOrDie (talk) 07:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
"Editorial judgement" is not what is being applied when a ban is imposed by people stating "kill it" as their reasons for banning. What editorial judgement IS is decisions being made on a case-by-case basis, not some WP:CREEP instruction that makes a source impossible to use even where it's the best source for a particular subject. FOARP (talk) 08:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Which I guess brings us back to the double-nosed Andean tiger hound. If Wikipedia was to lose that one source on an obscure freak breed of dog, and in return we could clean up the tabloid sleaze, lies and rubbish that the Mail routinely dishes up, I would consider it a highly worthwhile trade. So would the community. Is it a political thing for you? Are we in the business of trying to correct our left-wing bias by including material from right-wing populist rags? That would be sad. --MarchOrDie (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
The political nature of the ban is undeniable. Were it not politically-motivated, it would not only be the Mail that is banned. I am merely trying to remove a bias-fueled ban, not counter it with other bias. I do not think the Mail should be used for BLP/controversial subjects, which is good because that is already the policy for tabloids. FOARP (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Maybe that's one point we can agree on, that this should never be used on BLPs. --MarchOrDie (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
And since the instructions we have already state that tabloids not be used for BLPs/controversial subjects, what is the point of this ban? FOARP (talk) 12:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Bludgeoning


I think this is the place to discuss the accusation you are WP:BLUDGEON.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Not even the foggiest clue what you are talking about Steve. FOARP (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

On the RSN board you have been accused of bludgeoning the debate. I do not think that is an appropriate place for such an accusation (or for your response), this is. Thus I am raising it here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Whoever did it didn’t tag me so I have no idea what you are talking about. I’m sure you’re trying to be helpful though Steve. FOARP (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Ah! You mean the DM debate? Yeah, just saw it: same editors playing the same procedural game they have been since before the debate even started. No new !votes there anyway and the discussion has clearly wound down so why are they doing this now? You were right to oppose. FOARP (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you!


Nice job sourcing Elizabeth O. Hiller. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Oops. but do enjoy the beer, you and I meet a lot on AfD pages, and you've earned it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you!


Another beer, you deserve it after that string of unfounded nominations of deletion. E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • But, do you have any idea what that was about. Come clue to that editor's motivation for nominating a series of notable if minor 20th century writers and artists? E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
No idea. The nom (who is an admin and apparently in poor health) appears to have been angry at the author of those pieces. Happily AfD editors don't like being treated as a dumping ground. FOARP (talk) 08:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 21


An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nana Ampadu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Democratic Congress (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

January 2019


Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Syamaprasad Jana Jagaran Manch (2nd nomination). Thank you. DBigXray 12:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC) I AGF, but I also see the table thing pulled out to hide something about the references over and over in recent AFDs in general. FOARP (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Does the


... recent batch of edits by user Kzl55 constitutes a form of WP:GRAVEDANCING? They created a draftification log of pages supposedly created by a blocked user they were in a content dispute with. They went for a back-door deletion of a page that was kept at AfD. It may extend to collatoral damage as a page created by Awalbaacaashaqa who has a clean block log was draftified and they turned this 13,000 kb page into a stub. 88.104.37.149 (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

If you think that someone is behaving badly, and can't resolve it via their talk page etc., take it to WP:ANI. My essay on WP:GRAVEDANCING isn't official WP policy so my opinion on this doesn't really matter one way or the other. FOARP (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrative Notice Board incident report involving "Callout culture" article


There is an Administrative Notice Board report (which can be found here) concerning Bacondrum's edits to the Call-out culture article. I am posting this notice on the Talk pages of the ten most frequent contributors to the article who have accounts on Wikipedia. -- DeRossitt (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Daily Mail RfC (wider comment)


I think that the whole banning the Daily Mail business is just basically the continuation of a more-questionable publicity stunt back in 2017. 'The owner' is not British (and I don't even think he lives in Britain full time), and neither are most of the most vociferous proponents, and they know that the underlying arguments are not really that particularly strong, so the debate inevitably descend into something similar to an uncivil shouty Twitter spat. I mean, how could they possibly attack the printed copy of the Daily Mail of any given day is full of 'fake news', when they are not in fact based in England and Wales or Scotland, and can't actually get hold of a copy readily and cheaply, and read up and reference on it?! Cannot really reason with political activists who are supporting that 'Stop Funding Hate' Twitter handle and otherwise harbouring a clear political agenda, and no point in bothering trying. I momentarily thought of suggesting a new RfC limiting to the scope (ex MOS, MOL pre-2011, the print edition pre-2011 and (for now, the Saturday print editions) post-2017/8) might have been workable, but I soon have my doubts. I mean, anyone who thinks that RT, al-Jazeera and Press TV are e.g. somehow more reliable than the Mail... and the Independent has been recently attacked on Private Eye for doing no fact-checking and otherwise going down the road of Huff Post and Business Insider, rather than still maintaining the pretence that they are still a serious digital newspaper. Anyway, you nevertheless might however still wish to decide to come to that conclusion and take that particular course of action. (A complete lifting of the 'ban' is probably now impossible and unwise, now that the MOL has gone on this no-sub-editing, clickbaityesque, 'instant news' model; and I believe also that fake news are also knowingly and deliberately written on that website from time to time (e.g. regarding Interpal).) A cursory search on the editing history of the article of Labour MPs (in particular their wider editing behaviour) would suggest that this platform is not free from UK domestic political interference. (PS: I don't know if I had in my younger self once (in 2011/2?) commented on your Blog when you were still based in Taiwan or Japan?!) 194.207.146.167 (talk) 02:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Page rename


  • If you are proposing a page rename/move I believe it is not appropriate for you to add a Support !vote for it also
  • See WP:RM#CM for my best understanding of the approach to controversial moves.

Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Fine, don't count my vote - it really doesn't make any difference if my vote is counted or not. FYI the process for RFCs requires that you put your arguments in a support vote and make the proposal neutral and this was the one I was following. FOARP (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
PS - Apologies if the above was a bit brusque, I've swapped it out for the template you linked to. FOARP (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
That OK. Compared to the moans on my talk page its nothing. Best Regards. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 24


Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Noah Carl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Spencer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ  Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

No deal will need an admin move


Although it looks like there is a strong consensus for the move, presumably you realise that you can't just be bold and move it, because the article name already exists as a redirect. So an administrator will have to do it. Meanwhile, assuming there are no serious objections to my transferring the no-deal material out of Negotiations, I intend to be bold and change the target of No-deal Brexit away from Negotiations and onto Immediate Effect. So the desired outcome is likely to happen in effect very soon, even if it takes until 28/7 to do it properly. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  • @John Maynard Friedman: Confirming I have no objection to those bold moves for the reasoning given and have no intention to revert them (Subject to a "safe habour" in the unlikely event I have some sort of big issue with the result). A simply redirect with no history could probably be overwitten this has historic edits.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC) I've added a WP:BOLD Under construction to the article which if it remains in place allows article to be re-purposed (I've generally wanted to keep a health warning of some sort on that article since it was curated especially given curation comments. Now that is a bold move. Note I may or may not edit that article myself ... I'm mostly concerned with editing the D&KR at the moment ad while I'm doing that I'm probably not causing too much trouble. Probably. But I will be trying to make sure the 1st paragraph describes No-deal Brexit" in terms hopefully understandable by an eight year old. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
When I move the material across, I shall note "copied from with attribution". I think that there is a template for that. Is that what you had in mind? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
@John Maynard Friedman: Its more just the way I word things ... If I think there is a say 0.01% of something occurring I will tend to say probably. I think Wikipedia:PATT gives the required attribution. I'm just being ultra pedantic. I'd suggest keave the "under construction" in placed until the move occurs. Thanks.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Camp Becket


Hi I saw your opposition to changing the name of the Camp Becket Wikipedia page to Becket-Chimney Corners YMCA. I agree with you that the best solution would be to make a new page entirely for chimney corners camp. As a newcomer to Wikipedia I am not quite sure how to go about this I was wondering either if you could help me make a new page for Chimney, or change your opposing vote to changing the name for all the reasons I requested in my name change proposal. Thank you so much. Jmansfield2021 (talk) 02:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sweden during World War I


Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sweden during World War I you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Haukurth -- Haukurth (talk) 10:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, FOARP! Is there anything in my review which you'd like to discuss? Haukur (talk) 08:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Haukur - Thanks a lot for taking the time to review it. What you said all seems very sensible. I just need to take the time to implement it - I'll get in touch once I've done it. I think something like this should be possible to get a GA on as it's very stable history. FOARP (talk) 08:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
All right, there's no rush. And it's an interesting topic. Haukur (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey Haukur - I did sweep through to try to address your points. I was able to at least partially address all of the except for the issue with the Salmon reference which I do not have direct access to - however the chapter appears to be only 2-3 pages long judging by the word-count so referring to it simply by chapter should still allow the relevant content to be located. You can still send the reference to me if you like (fearofaredplanet at yahoo dot co dot uk). I also tried to expand the content, though without knowing Swedish it is hard to go very far on the cultural impact and domestic side of things, but at least I included the basic information from the Qvarnstrom reference. FOARP (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Impressive work today. I'll try to get through another pass over the weekend. I can read Swedish if there are key sources in Swedish we need to consult. Haukur (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I finally got around to another read! Good work. I left some more comments on the review page. Haukur (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Instana


An editor has asked for a deletion review of Instana. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. FabianLange (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I have a question though: How is one actually supposed to come up with a a completely new article? You have read the article right? The deleted version provides a history of the company with the significant dates and events. Then it includes the standard company box. And it contains an explanation about the market and the technology. Are you saying none of that can be reused in a new article? No certainly not. A new article needs to include all of that information. It looks like the problem is, the original article was just too good, so it is impossible to write a better one now ;) FabianLange (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Write a different article. Add in as many of the references as possible and refer to what they say (i.e., only write about what the references discuss). Infoboxes and so-forth aren't essential. Referenced content is. FOARP (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Thats certainly not possible. The article would need to be on topic and all the content was from the references. Anyhow, doesn't look like the community would be welcoming another attempt for a while. We will see next year. FabianLange (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
You discussed new sources in your DelRev request - didn't they discuss anything not already covered in the original article? FOARP (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Exactly, additional content. It was Speedy Deleted because it also contained the same old content as before + 200 new words. Apparently thats not yet enough :) The sad part is that DelRev explicitly says that such appeals should be relisted and then a discussion should be had on the deletion page. I hate citing Wikipedia rules to admins, and it is just frustrating and it sucks the energy out of my life. Let's just wait this out, maybe in 2-3 years the page gets unlocked and somebody will make another attempt to please the admins in the future :) - Thanks for your comment, also on the original AfD FabianLange (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Just adding 200 words to the same article that had already been deleted is unlikely to cut it. FOARP (talk) 07:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
PS - I tried my best to write an article that might pass which you can see on my sandbox FOARP (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey FabianLange, I've posted the above article with an additional reference (the piece that WDR did on Instana). Although someone tried to speedy delete it the speedy was declined as it was obviously a different article, was more neutral, and better referenced. Someone also tried to add a COI noticed for "undisclosed paid editing" to the article but I deleted it and complained on their talk page (because obviously I have not been paid for doing this - I'm just an editor who thinks that Wiki is too negative about companies). Assuming no-one tries to send it to AFD in the next few weeks it looks like it should stick this time. Some words of advice:
1) It really is better if you don't edit this page, anything that you add will be judged with a lot of suspicion since you have an obvious COI. Especially don't upset the neutral tone of the article.
2) If it does go to AFD, please, please do not vote in the AFD as COI editors are rarely listened to much. ESPECIALLY do not vote as an IP editor (I'm not saying that those two keep votes from IP editors in the last AFD were you, but of course people were going to think that they were). FOARP (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Instana


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

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

A tag has been placed on Instana requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instana. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted 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. ... discospinster talk 14:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Let the record show that the Speedy deletion was declined. FOARP (talk) 07:11, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sweden during World War I


The article Sweden during World War I you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sweden during World War I for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Haukurth -- Haukurth (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12


An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Herero Wars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nama (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19


An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Day by Day (webcomic), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ebonics (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

"a change in strategy"


In regards to your Talk:Call-out_culture#A_Chill_Pill I'm curious to learn what you meant by "a change in strategy"? Suggestions welcome, in Talk page or by email. Thanks. (Please ping when replying anywhere other than my Talk page) —Srid🍁 14:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Sridc - Mostly, don't get involved in bad-tempered-looking wall-of-text discussions that don't seem to actually achieve anything. Particularly where there's only two editors involved and no-one else is likely to want to become involved because of the way the discussion looks. FOARP (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process


Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message


Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

AFD you participated in back again


Five months ago you participated in the first AFD for List of mechanical keyboards.  It is now back at AFD yet again. Dream Focus 02:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

List of Redwall characters


Hi FOARP,

I see administrator RoySmith has closed the deletion review for List of Redwall characters as no consensus, which defaults to the original "delete" close being upheld. The closure was reasonable, but in the close, it's noted that the article may be able to be restored.

I'm not even sure what "Redwall" is, but if you want to work on this list in Draft: namespace, I'm writing to let you know I'd support any bid you make for undeletion and move-ing to the "draft" namespace, should you wish to pursue that.

Happy editing,
--Doug Mehus T·C 16:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers Doug, they're good books (or at least were when read them as a kid) so I'll give it a try, but possily not right now as I'm on a business trip. FOARP (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Online Blockchain


I have just relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Online Blockchain. If you would prefer this be soft deleted ping me and I will close the AfD that way (assuming no one has come along and !voted kept in the interim). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Hacklash


Sad to see certain governments following Wikipedia's lead in 'banning' newspapers they don't like. Kind of funny to see the Daily Mail offering some of the most effective criticism on this. Hope all is going well for you. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

AfDs


Thanks for your help with Complex (English band). If you have time, you may want to check out the other articles I have nominated in case I have made any more mistakes. I plan to stop nominating AFDs for now, as I think I over-estimated the quality of my research. JohnmgKing (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Invitation


You are invited to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stelth Ulvang for making a comment on the issue. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history invitation


Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's articles related to military and warfare. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Military history? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall coverage of military and warfare on Wikipedia. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!


The Editor's Barnstar
For your work on the Axis powers page, lets work together in the future! 7645ERB (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Operas


The list of operas had many bad names already, and why should it be stuck with "prominent" - a word that doesn't occur in the article?? It used to be "important" until someone closed a move request to their liking and disappeared. Such a waste of time, while that incorrect earlier close could just have been reverted. End of frustrated rant, sorry about that. - I liked your detailed analysis for Chinese whispers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt - All fair comments, and yeah, I personally disagree with the previous close, but nothing there was going to make that a consensus to move and it had already run for enough time without further movement towards a consensus for another name. Maybe with a "No consensus" close and a push towards "Great operas" (or something also supported by reliable sources) they'll get there. If you want to open a further move discussion I'd be happy to support something with good basis. FOARP (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Did you see the history? I went to the first closer's talk and asked to reconsider. They never replied. Now we have a complete waste of time, 2nd failed move request, and you suggest 3rd, and "great" is another terrible word, so 4th is programmed, - instead of just overturning the first close. I'll just watch and sigh. I am here to add missing content. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately I can't just overturn an already confirmed, reviewed close. Any name that is supported by reliable sources will have my support - doesn't have to be "great". FOARP (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry if I was unclear. I didn't expect YOU to revert the close. I made an estimated 15 comments in the matter and that was 14 too many. If only that first closer had reconsidered. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 9


An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Oriole, Kentucky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ian Hunter.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message


Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of They Live on The Land


Hello! Your submission of They Live on The Land at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! AviationFreak💬 18:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

FOARP, Thanks for quick implementation of the suggestions. Please never put symbol while replying as it makes the DYK passed and as a creator/nominator we are not supposed to self-review as you did here while replying. Thank you. — Amkgp 💬 19:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Ooops! Sorry, didn't realise that. Thanks Amkgp. FOARP (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

On the mass deletion attempt


I was coming to the conclusion, pondering the situation this morning, that a mass delete of all those sourced only to Durham was probably in order. Almost none of those pan out, and it can certainly be argued that citation only to a single, exhaustive listing is a major GNG fail. Dealing with the GNIS listings is going to meet a lot of resistance. Mangoe (talk) 16:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Mangoe I think a big part of the problem is that we are listing these one-by-one, and this fails to highlight the group nature of the problem. If we highlight that these are one big group of WP:GEOLAND-failing articles this may meet less resistance since people will soon see that there really are no other sources than GNIS/Durham, and that these aren't enough to sustain notability. GNIS has already been described as unreliable at WP:RSN (e.g., here) but if we really need to further demonstrate its unreliability we can possibly raise another RFC (maybe a Daily Mail-style general reliability RFC?) on GNIS at RSN. FOARP (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Chinese whispers/Telephone


I am very disappointed about how the closer and many other editors are ignoring you're sources showing 30% more common for "Chinese whispers" (even assuming POVNAME was a valid reason for moving anyway). I honestly thought that when I saw you're strong arguments presented with sources etc that you'd completely demolished the case for moving the article, combined with my ATDAB arguments which address RETAIN. Not one of the editors at the discussion, closer or move review have addressed you're sources, quite shocking. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

It's about what I expected TBF. FOARP (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Now overturned as "no consensus" which I think is much better, its a textbook WP:NOTAVOTE when nearly double favour moving but the other side has stronger arguments our PAGs demand that we usually don't find a consensus to move, with thanks to Amakuru for the correct reading of consensus. I could maybe see the point that "the support arguments would have to be really weak for the discussion to be closed as "no consensus"" if the ratio was more like 10:1 or even 5:1 but "no consensus" for 2-1 (or less) are commonplace. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
@User:Crouch, Swale - Thanks for the update. A pleasantly surprising outcome. FOARP (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Valliance Bank Tower


I found this mess. If you nominate it at WP:AFD, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of They Live on The Land


Hello! Your submission of They Live on The Land at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

DYK for They Live on the Land


On 29 December 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article They Live on the Land, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the social study They Live on the Land was based on interviews with nearly the entire population of a rural Alabama town during the Great Depression? You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, They Live on the Land), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year


Happy New Year 2021
I hope your New Year holiday is enjoyable and the coming year is much better than the one we are leaving behind.
Best wishes from Los Angeles.   // Timothy :: talk 

Disambiguation link notification for January 28


An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chinese whispers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Double Dutch.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Kieren Hawken sources


Hi, I see you've reverted a number of my edits recently. They were made based on Wikipedia's "Verifiability" guidelines around self-published books.

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper)

To quote : "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."

Based on a huge amount of feedback regarding the author's books, they are found to be inaccurate. As for the author being an "established expect", there are numerous respected and reliable sources in the field of retro computing that would strongly argue against that.

For that reason I'd made the edits, as they didn't meet the requirements of a reliable source.  Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.39.122.18 (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

When used as a support for uncontroversial statements this doesn't matter. Going through Wiki removing sources willy-nilly is not productive editing (indeed, I note that your activities on IP address 86.162.15.34 have triggered spam filters over at ANI). Please stop. FOARP (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

My apologies. I'm still trying to understand some of the Wikipedia guidelines and when they're applied. No malice intended, and I appreciate the feedback.

Lesson learned. 86.162.15.34 (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Sentinel cartridge cover


Hi, FOARP. I noticed the file you uploaded for the Sentinel game cover is relatively high-res, when the minimal use rationale in the 'Summary' section reads: "The is a low-quality, low-res image [...]". I've basically never seen copyrighted box art posted at such a high resolution; for example, here's one that I retrieved from Moby Games but which I had to downscale substantially to meet Wikipedia's fair use guidelines. Unless something has changed substantially, I think the image you uploaded may be in violation of those guidelines. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi TheTechnician27, many thanks for the clean-up and expansion work you did on this article. I've been steadily working my way down the list of games for the Atari 2600 filling out the red links, and this wasn't an easy one to do given the way most magazines had stopped covering Atari console releases by 1989 or so, but I think it's a solid WP:GNG-pass at this point. Up until now I've been working on the assumption that if it wasn't hi-res enough to make a poster (probably the main residual economic value of these images) then use would have minimal economic impact, however I'm very happy to be pointed to the relevant guideline on this to revise it. FOARP (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
No problem, FOARP! I'm glad to see the article was marked as 'Reviewed'. Admittedly, I was going clear it earlier but decided against it just because I thought notability could be a bit fuzzy and wanted someone else to double-check. I think the work you're doing is fantastic, as I'm really interested in game preservation, and I think a resource like Wikipedia goes a long way to accomplishing that.
As far as the resolution of non-free images use goes, the standard I used was WP:IMAGERES, and I used the image resize tool that's linked there. While I think this standard is entirely ridiculous, I recognize that it's not Wikipedia's fault whatsoever and that they still have to abide by the absurdities of copyright law. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I was going to wait until after fully reviewing your other two unreviewed articles, but I couldn't help myself


The Video Game Barnstar
For your contributions to the preservation of video game history through ten new, well-sourced, well-written articles about retro Atari games. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Cheers TheTechnician27. There's only a few of the original Atari-released Atari 2600 games left without articles. Some are obviously never going to have articles (can't find enough sources for Motorodeo, for example) but should be able to finish off the rest. Then I plan to look at the sourcing of the other articles to deletion-proof them. FOARP (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

"Some are obviously never going to have articles (can't find enough sources for Motorodeo, for example) [...]" I feel as though I've been issued a challenge. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of RealSports Baseball


Hello! Your submission of RealSports Baseball at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —Bagumba (talk) 03:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi again


Hi again, FOARP. I wanted to let you know I've moved 'RealSports series' to 'RealSports', as I don't see any need to disambiguate here, and there's actually a lot of established precedent for not putting 'series' in an article about a video game series (except, of course, for articles like 'Pokemon (video game series) or FIFA (video game series) where the franchise extends far beyond just games). TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for RealSports Baseball


On 13 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article RealSports Baseball, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that RealSports Baseball, part of Atari's response to an Intellivision marketing campaign fronted by George Plimpton, won a best sports game award for 1983? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/RealSports Baseball. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, RealSports Baseball), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Good points


About the artificial and simplified graduation of sources. Also, something just I realized: this wording suggests that an obscure paper in the lowest denomination peer-reviewed journal (one not indexed anywhere), written by an otherwise unknown scholar who may not even be an expert in the field (let's say a musician...), with zero citations, paywalled, with zero footnotes (an academic op-ed) etc. is still considered 'fine', whereas an award-winning, best-selling book, consulted with and positively reviewed by scholars, with footnotes and so on, is 'bad' because it is published by a non-academic publishing house. Because academic peer review is infallible? *Facepalm* . Btw, as you may or may not know, I am academic too and I publish peer-reviewed papers. And if you ask me for a synonym for peer-review, here's one: a lottery (well, the system works well enough to keep total garbage out, but once a work is plausible, all bets are off... grievance studies affair anyone?). Any academic who publisher papers in social sciences knows that if the reviewers don't like it, the solution is not to waste time addressing their objections (usually too much work, plus if the paper got rejected, why bother addressing criticism of reviewers who'll never review a given work again?), just keep hitting different journals until you get a set of reviewers who like your point. And as far as I can tell, this applies to 'top journals' (the ones in best indexes, with high impact factors, etc.). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for The Coming War With Japan


On 5 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Coming War With Japan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that neither of the US-based authors of the 1991 book The Coming War With Japan had ever visited Japan when they wrote it? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Coming War With Japan. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Coming War With Japan), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Stop


Please show me where in the ANI it states ALL those village articles MUST be redirected. Thank. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts - They have exactly the same sourcing, subject matter, and quality as those that led you being sanctioned. They have exactly the same sourcing and subject matter as the ones redirected to Azizye. They are exactly the same articles that there was a consensus against at WP:TURKEY. Clearly the same logic applies.
Please, take a hint: it shouldn't take multiple discussions in multiple fora with multiple editors all telling you the same thing over and over: they don't want these single-sentence, single-source Geostubs. FOARP (talk) 09:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
You've avoided answering a simple question - "Please show me where in the ANI it states ALL those village articles MUST be redirected". So where does it say this? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I've answered the question: these are articles of exactly the same type, with exactly the same kind of sourcing, and are of exactly the same quality. I suggest we discuss this at WP:TURKEY which is a better forum, and where a number of editors have already made their opinions known about this. FOARP (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
"I've answered the question" - no you have not. So again, where in the ANI does it say this? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a gazetteer


Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a gazetteer, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a gazetteer and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a gazetteer during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Vaticidalprophet 09:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi VP. I understand your concerns here but I hope my explanation, and the further expansion of the essay, has at least partly laid them to rest. Like I said I'm happy to userfy if required but it doesn't look like that's going to be necessary given the present !votes (which could of course change). I was rather hoping to get other geo editors in on the essay to comment on it, and to use it in AFDs, but at present I'm concerned that linking to it in that context could result in allegations of WP:CANVASS. Obviously we can just wait until the MFD is done but since the !votes right now are all keeps withdrawal of the nom is also still possible, and would enable improvement and use of the essay earlier. Cheers. FOARP (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't tend to withdraw XfDs or other nominations even if they aren't going the direction I might have wanted, unless some really good information has come up ("you missed this huge RS" stuff); it has the same outcome whether I let it run or not, and withdrawing just feels intellectually dishonest. As for "using in AfDs"...well, you heard my opinion there. Essay shortcut culture is fundamentally destructive, it harms AfD, it harms the project, and by extension, it harms the entire scope of human knowledge. I suspect we could raise the discourse level in the whole place several steps if we banned block capitals. Vaticidalprophet 15:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks for the rapid response. FOARP (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
No problem. Apologies if I'm being a bit curt, by the by; sometimes I'm just in a more theory than practice mood. I have had a lot of thoughts lately on our notability standards, their potential replacements, and the function of AfD. I don't even disagree with the essay per se (my thoughts on how WP:N would be reformed lately are not too kind to stubs); I just think throwing around brand new shortcuts on AN as part of an extended argument about someone who's clearly been through the wringer lately is on multiple levels an unfortunate look, combined with further thought about why our essay shortcut culture even exists and how much it prevents AfD reform. I'd happily MfD about 95% of essays at this point... Vaticidalprophet 15:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Axis Powers Page


Hi FOARP, I was not aware there was a second mass discussion opened this year. Wish I knew at the time it was happening in February. I don’t know how many participated. I recall you and I participated in one late last year so thought that was the one. It had seemed you and I were on the same page hence my confusion and surprise and why I reverted why I did. Hope no hard feelings. My bad. OyMosby (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

No problemo OyMosby , TBH I wasn't initially supporting getting rid of every country that we didn't have a source explicitly saying had been an Axis power from the infobox, but as the discussion went on there were some pretty persuasive arguments made that doing otherwise was basically OR and I was convinced. Really, there is no clear definition of what an "Axis power" is so it is wrong for us to try to invent one and then include countries as Axis powers which no source says were Axis powers. FOARP (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Awesome. But it may be OR or POV if we mean this not in a negative way, to say we only look at the title of Croatia vs Independent State of Croatia on which one the sources mentioned same time with “Axis”. I’m not comprehending this part. As for sources I meant NDH being acknowledged as a name. Which most of the sources mention. I did not say they do not mention the short version. Or that the entire full name Is used when Axis membership comes up. Sorry if I wasn’t clear. OyMosby (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Honestly I think the reliable sources overwhelmingly using just "Croatia" when listing them as an Axis power is pretty convincing argument that we should too, but if a consensus emerges for the opposite contention I'm not bothered too much by it being the opposite way either. I really think we focus way, way too much on the infobox. It's almost like people don't even read the rest of the article. Long term I'd like to take that article up to GA (and it's a big enough task that more than one editor should do it) but the continuous edit-warring over the infobox means it can't even be nominated. FOARP (talk) 09:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
PS - I've honestly got doubts about Thailand being listed as an Axis power - what do you think? The only source I've found explicitly listing them as an Axis Power is Bowman, but it's a very general source and if you read the text it doesn't seem very accurate (and it also includes Albania as an Axis power!). I've added the sources that I could find saying that Thailand was an Axis member to the article but they are not very high-quality (one is a dictionary of Thai history, another is a school textbook, another is an article about Thai minority groups, another is a speech by a US Congresswoman). At the moment I am only about 55% convinced it should be there. FOARP (talk) 09:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Thing is readers tend to skim the intro and infobox out of laziness. This worries me that people won’t have all the context. And I did “give a shit about Slovakia” as another editor brought up. I changed it too. And argued it too. I never heard of Thailand as being an “Axis Power” or Albania. But I’m definitely not the best historian on WWII. Peacemaker67 may be a good person to ask. They have participated in the past on the talk oage. I’ll look at the sources you mentioned. Cheers OyMosby (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
FOARP you come across any other potential sources for Thailand? Couldn’t really find much. OyMosby (talk)
I would not have ever known that Hungary was reinstalled as a puppet state by the Nazis. Infobox is much more informative. Thanks @FOARP: for working together with me. I haven’t had a change to do a deep dive in the sources about Thailand or Albania. I’ll try to verify again. Have you found any more material? Also are there any other articles we could work together on? I’m looking for some good projects to work on and I enjoyed collaborating with ya. Let me know. Preferably not WWII but not too much a problem. Stay well. OyMosby (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey OyMosby, yeah, still not found any better references for Thailand. I'm 55% convinced they should be there, but I'd certainly want to see better sourcing before taking this to GA. FOARP (talk) 08:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi FOARP haven’t heard back from you in a while. Hope all is well. I’ll try to look more into it. I’m amazed such a important article such as Axis Powers wasn’t cleaned up and given GA a long time ago. You did great in the massive improvements you made there. Thanks for that and for working with me as well. Again I’ll see if there are more sources for Thailand. Though given you did a thorough search I likely won’t find much new but incase I will try. Worst thing that happens, upon review they will just make some comments about some changes they want, we make those changes, and they will pass it quickly. They won’t just throw out the application. Not at least from what I have seen. At least not from my short 4-5 years hear. I never submitted an article myself for one. I do want to submit AJI T-610 Super Pinto. A pet project of mine not obsessed with the Balkan Wikisphere and all the toxic mental and emotional exhaustion and stressful anxiety that comes with it. The article I think is far from ready but I just want to practice getting an article at least in B rating condition. I joined this platform as a hobby to volunteer to improve Tech-Mechanical or Architecture related articles and their history. In fact any advice or help you can offer would be great. I was on and off this platform so I don’t have the full 4 years of true experience. Sorry for the long essay. I get excited some times! :) OyMosby (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The Coming War with Japan


I've reviewed the GAN, and it's on hold. Just a little bit to do. The bot that runs the GA stuff is apparently down today, so I thought I'd post you a message here, to make sure you saw it. Hog Farm Talk 03:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey Hog Farm. Thanks for the heads up. All points seem reasonable and I've updated the article to try to address them. Let me know if there's any further points that need covering off. FOARP (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Coming War With Japan


Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Coming War With Japan you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 08:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Page mover granted


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

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

Useful links:

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! PMC (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Coming War With Japan


The article The Coming War With Japan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Coming War With Japan for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

DS 2021 Review Update


Dear FOARP,

Thank you for participating in the recent discretionary sanctions community consultation. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a summary of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future mailings by removing your name here.
--Barkeep49 & KevinL (aka L235) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Featuring your work on Wikipedia's front page: DYKs


Thank you for your recent articles, including Kozłow Desert, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. This can be also done through this helpful user script: User:SD0001/DYK-helper. Let me know if you need help, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I need your experience


Sometimes it happens that some expert users are so overbearing as to be annoying. Often prone to edit warring and personal attacks. In the specific case I want to refer to the national titles section in the biographies of the athletes (but also to the medal table count in the infobox). Well according to the Manual Of Style for athlete biographies this is recommended, but it happens that the user in question makes you one or more reverts saying that it is irrelevant for him. As you know it is almost useless to raise the question in the talk of the page and even in the project, this was done but without any participation. Therefore, based on your experience, given that in the recent past you have even managed to make downgrade the rights of this expert user because he is the author of stubs, probably not even encyclopedic articles, just to be able to improve his already very high ranking among users who have written more articles. Really only the ANI can be resolved the question? Otherwise I ask you for advice, but also for help, on how on Wikipedia you can give visibility to the topic (I did not succeed) and obtain a consensus in order to avoid ANI. --Kasper2006 (talk) 03:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

1) You’re risking being sanctioned for WP:CANVASS by contacting me this way.

2) This is somewhat erratic and hard-to-understand behaviour from Lugnuts. I don’t get why a national title (assuming these are national-level titles and the source for them is actually reliable) would not be relevant.

3) I recommend simply contacting him directly on his talk-page, non-confrontationally, for an answer. You should also confirm that your source is a reliable one. FOARP (talk) 06:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)