User talk:FeatherPluma/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

File:Kelebek.gif

Bitshares

Hi there, can you please have another look at the Bitshares article. Thanks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Bitshares — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruzaiq (talk • contribs) 18:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Took a glance. Some interval improvement. Will aim on working through more completely over next 3-4 days. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry took so long. The article still needs work. Hopefully the review comments help. FeatherPluma (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Glanzmann's thrombasthenia

Just read above page and was impressed. Looked at edit history and deduced you were the one who put it in order. Nice job.

Regards -

IiKkEe (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Is "ce" as an edit summary supposed to mean something? OK if you are doing a long series of edits to the same article then "ditto" might be acceptable on all edits except the first. Otherwise, please always provide a meaningful edit summary. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. It seems clear though that some edits, and the edit in question is clearly within the category, are upon brief examination inherently evidentiary as to purpose. When that pertains, no specific additional information could (philosophically) be provided beyond denoting the work product as a general ce (or copy edit). "ce" is an industry standard abbreviation for "copy edit". It's not esoteric; it's used widely. Now you know. FeatherPluma (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

What an incredibly long winded way of telling me that ce stands for copy edit. I submit that this edit cannot be considered a copy edit. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion which I understand. You seem to have missed my point. But I suppose a summary like "plz help" would be better. FeatherPluma (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC) If the autocomplete text works, I've added an expansion to various abbreviations which will help going forward. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC) Autocomplete is a browser specific expansion, so I'll try to add expansions to the various workstations as I go. FeatherPluma (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC) I have added an explanation of edit summary abbreviations to the user page. I will also try to add the autocomplete expansions to each browser on first use. FeatherPluma (talk) 20:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Educational technology, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Learning theory and Server. 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) 08:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Hedonic hunger

Hi FeatherPluma: I've nominated Hedonic hunger for review to attain good article classification (see Talk:Hedonic hunger). Thanks for creating improving the new article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

(Modified part of my comment above; article was created by a different user.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ZS Pharma logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ZS Pharma logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

An editor has pointed out that the logo is for the company, not the agent, and so the logo should be deleted. Left message on image page. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

Hello FeatherPluma. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi, FeatherPluma! Thank you for you help in making the page symmetry of diatomic molecules better.--Sudip1993 (talk) 10:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Articles for creation

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Articles for creation for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (consult) @ 21:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

No thanks. FeatherPluma (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27

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.

Chromosome 5q deletion syndrome

added a link pointing to Nucleus

Diamond–Blackfan anemia

added a link pointing to TSR2

Dyskeratosis congenita

added a link pointing to Dystrophy

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. FeatherPluma (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Copy paste

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. With this edit you pasted 200 words verbatim from a source. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, I myself removed the material from Diamond–Blackfan anemia- it wasn't passively "removed" as implied in the template slap - and you personally most definitely did not remove it as attested to in the time stamp sequence. Secondly, my mistake arose from an unscheduled Windows update - I made a move intended to save all open tabs / work, and things got mixed up, from the clipboard (which I thought was directed at Word). Third, the material is an abstract, and to some nuanced extent falls into the dog bowl's 50 shades of grey area - yes, it's copyright, but no it's not handled by scientific publishers in the same way (see the wikipedia article on the topic which makes things clear enough). So I am sorry for the inadvertent mistake, which had an extenuating causality. I very much doubt it will happen again, but unexpected technical futzes can occur in specific conditions, such as the rudder problems on 737's before the redo. This response is not intended as a personal comment on your use of the template but as an emphatic explanation that no copyright infringement was intended, and in all fairness did not occur, despite the important reminder regarding WP:COPYVIO you sent. FeatherPluma (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

AfC reviews

Hi FeatherPluma,

I would recommend that you be more careful when checking the sourcing before accepting AfC submissions. Orion Edutech, for example, would probably be a candidate for G11 and might not survive AfD due to lack of sources to prove notability. Its six sources are hardly enough and leave entire sections devoid of sources. Bring Me Your Torch is a better-written submission and appears being close to acceptance, but doesn't quite appear ready for articlespace yet due to lack of sources to prove notability; your accept was reverted by User:Primefac. Leah Nicole Totton doesn't appear to follow MOS naming guidelines, is not a B-class article (too short for one), is written in a slanted-promotional tone, and, in my opinion, barely makes a claim to notability. Someone once said that the best reviewers accept one in 50 submissions, which seems about right. Consider raising your standards and/or spending more time at NPP doing CSD work to know what is really acceptable. Perhaps consider only doing obvious declines, and when the nuances of acceptance are understood, begin to accept, maybe one a day. Thanks and good luck! — kikichugirl ^speak up! 20:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Can I also ask what is meant by "ce"? it seems like it's a short edit summary that's about as much as not using one at all...? — kikichugirl ^speak up! 21:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Kikichugirl:

I appreciate your message, and I'll give you my gentle perspective as I absorb yours.

"ce" is an industry standard abbreviation for "copy edit". It's not esoteric; it's used widely. Yes, it does indeed mean what you say - that an intelligent look at the edit will be self explanatory. Have you not seen it before? Do you mind if we dwell on the central first issue you brought up, where you are the expert and I can learn? That would please me, as it would be good form to focus initially on your initial encyclopedic reason for sending me the message. If I have it right, you feel I am careless and uneducated in the matter of Leah Totton specifically, and AfC generally.

I had not set out to be both careless and uneducated. I accept you are painting me as both. I do however reserve the humble right to disagree entirely, particularly once I learn a few more things. You clearly want to bark as the big alpha dog expert, and I can learn from a few rolls from the alpha dog. Your tone smells off to me, but that's just my perception, nothing you have to pay any attention to - something you probably know already. I am just politely mentioning it you, and giving you room to remember to stop anything before it starts.

The first central encyclopedic issue is I already had an RM out before your message to request a change in the Leah Totton article name, which was blocked out technically. I'm aware of the MOS naming convention. I'd send you the link as a courtesy but you can find it yourself as an expert.

The second central encyclopedic issue is that I don't at this time see how you can conclude Leah Totton isn't notable. I personally think the Wikipedia notability guidelines are abundantly clear, and I would be willing to go through them with you. I think you are wrong about that article specifically. But I am willing to go to NPP and CSD to learn what's going on there, as you may well be correct that it's NOT what the notability guidelines literally say, but it's something to do with NPP and CSD. I promise to find out, and in due course, after enough further learning, I'll come to an opinion about whether I think that line of enquiry has a shred of cred re notability, about which I think I'm correct in seeing you as having an expert opinion. I'll follow your suggestion.

But, let's be absolutely clear: the reasons given for previously refusing the article were absolute rubbish - they recommended language that she "earned a GCSE degree" (really?) as well as enshrining an erroneous attack that she wasn't a physician. A simple search at General Medical Council suggests this was scurrilous abuse. So I'm sorry, I have no idea what NPP or CSD is yet, but I can find out, so I guess I can be redeemed some day, but until then I am already able to research whether someone is a registered doctor. Which some other people can't, apparently. You can then throw in assertions that the article is written in a slanted tone, but you don't point out exactly what is off, and you don't correct it to show me exactly what you are thinking. I see somebody has tagged the "In the News" section as needing expansion. My reading of the notability criteria (which I've read about 200 times - but you're right, nothing means what it says when you shove your face up against the side of the bureaucratic fishbowl) does not suggest that this constitutes a fair reason to refuse article advancement to mainspace.

Thanks for your advice. I'll follow up on the positive aspects. Until I find the real reason at NPP and CSD as to why you dislike the article I'll hold judgment on what is going on.

Thank you again for the pointer to NPP and CSD. FeatherPluma (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

First and foremost, I apologize for the tone. It was not my intention to insult you and I apologize if that was how I came across. Generally, as a NPP also, I try to avoid extra work for my colleagues there, which usually means setting my AfC standards pretty high. Often I find articles written between the standard of CSD-eligible and the common standard of AfC-passable, where they languish for months with multiple issues, unedited and potentially non-notable, before they are taken to AfC. In my view, AfC attempts to prevent this phenomenon from occurring. While AfC is not supposed to produce high-quality GA-eligible articles, or even fix all the problems, it seems to attempt to at least weed out a lot of the very bad ones (which I have seen you do pretty well). At the same time, I think that B-class on the Leah article might have been a bit of a stretch, because of the precedent set by other B-class articles I've noticed in the past, reference counts in the double digits. Many Wikiprojects also have their own checklist for B-class (at least Wikiproject Songs does when I was working with them last month). Ideally I would like to see articles accepted without the need for maintenance tags to languish at the top "copyedit" "advert" etc, which would probably leave the newbie pretty disgruntled "they accepted it, why do they still think it sucks?" and confused (Wikipedia's maintenance backlog aside). Of course, that's not always possible, so it's up to us and the rest of the AfC reviewers to decide what are the worst problems. The other reason I try to keep my standards high is that I am prepared to defend my acceptances (and I guess the project as a whole) should they go to AfD (they accepted it, now they want to delete it?) so anything I accept would be to prevent anyone from even considering taking the article to AfD. I guess my point is that if we accept articles and then they go to AfD, and the AfD closes as delete, it can start to look bad for us.

To address each of the named articles individually: I concede that Leah Totton's slant-promotional-tone-severity is about a 2 on a scale of 1 to 10, 11 being G11-able. However, I believe that while Leah Totton is not necessarily non-notable, she doesn't appear to be clearly notable (but only due to lack of sources). Okay, she's a medical professional, but what else? Is she just doing what doctors do, or did she do something else? there are ten sources on the article, but two aren't actual significant news mentions (one is a primary source, one is a profile) and there's a third one that couldn't be checked because it appears to be a web source but doesn't provide a link. While seven sources isn't completely insufficient, it's certainly not enough to leave no room for doubt. The prose in the article also is too short for context - what did she do? Why? As a NPP I would not speedy this article, but I would tag it for copyedit, expansion, and notability as some of it still reads a little bit like an advertisement with peacock terms. Perhaps involved user DGG would like to comment on this?

You do not mention Orion Edutech much. I believe that article should not have been accepted at that point in time because it was a list of achievements, which is generally cause for consideration for G11 (please let me know if you disagree!). I applaud you for your inclusionism, as it helps keep you from being bitey, but my two cents is that it could benefit the project if you upped your standards of inclusion. NPP time isn't necessary to become an AfC reviewer, but it is where I've obtained the majority of my experience, and when one reads new articles over and over again and wish they'd started at CSD, or when one has to A7/G11 so many articles, you can get a little jaded. :P

As for the c/e stuff, you're right, it obviously means copyedit and why didn't I think about that? Facepalm But isn't a comment on a talk page "cmt" not a copyedit? It's just semantics, but in my view (perhaps, like with AfCs, yours differs) edit summaries tell what is going on, and saves people from having to hit diff to see what happened.

— kikichugirl ^speak up! 23:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Your accept at Marian Wenzel looks good; I've re-accepted it. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 00:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I did not address Orion Edutech much, because... you are totally right about it. And I also didn't address it because it was my opinion that you were at that point conflating too many threads. As far as that article, I was ready to decline it for the exact reasons you state, and then I realized that there are issues that perhaps go beyond the technical in this type of article - the (possibly unconsciously xenophobic?) way in which Western culture assesses Indian references. It was quite probably the most inclusionist moment I've ever had - BUT I actually remember weighing this issue very carefully. My decision was not careless: it really was mulled over. I feel if it is looked at with an international eye it may have more cred then first appears. So, IF we were to focus on that article, to which I hope to return LATER (I'm going to let it chill for several days at least), I will carefully and politely assess it. But at best it's only a nuanced sensitivity on my part, and the issue is definitely in favor of non-inclusion for now, that's for sure. So I accept as a working point of view that you are correct about it. It's not a pressing concern for me, but if I have time I will go back over the article again and see what can be done to enhance it. Maybe even then it will stay as Draft.

The Leah Totton article isn't perfect. I agree with you. I also agree that advert tone possibly ranks 2 out of 10. Maybe, or maybe 0 or 1 - I'm respectful of what you're feeling from it, but I'm getting a different vibe. In any case, I stand by my contention that we really have indefensible issues if we tell people that "2 of 10 tone" results in a) outright rejection (no ranking of the problem, just blanket "no") rather than engagement and assistance, and b) we generalize our distaste about advertisement tone into a specious ad hominem claim of "not a medical practitioner" (sic). The cultural problem for all of us is that deliberately suppressing every sniff of fiscal sliver or mild slant is... deliberate suppression. I think that hurts us collectively. Maybe if it's 3 or 4 or 5 out of 10 advertisement it needs to go? Or maybe 1 or 2? It's a judgment issue and yes, I agree that NPP can provide consensus input and help us collectively discern silver from sliver. I'm sure in your review of my edits you've seen that I generally energetically redact advertisement aspects - as an example, look at the culling performed at Draft:FW Warehousing. To be explicit, I don't think it would be up to me individually to score 2 out of 10 as "OK" against everyone else. No problem. But the rejection "slip" has 3 elements, and the main 2 are wrong (badly wrong), and the third is nuanced, and I think that on this one I was right. But OK, I will slog away at the article and clean it up some more.

I try to use "ce" only on what I assess to be non-controversial edits, and only when the effort of explaining the edit is judged to vastly exceed the effort of looking at the diff. I don't think "ce' is really good form, but unfortunately some of the platforms I have used suppress both the "Common edit summaries" box and the browser clipboard that I would append otherwise. That's what happens when you sit in a High Castle behind a Wall of Protection. What I really want to do is get my "unexplained" edits down lower, and I came up with this compromise. My good news for me is I'll have a much better platform soon, like normal people haha.

Somebody reversed Marian Wenzel to Draft? On someone the Guardian's obit spoke of as a world expert, who had successfully defended a new historical paradigm. And then it got reverted back again. Good job all round. Glad to know I'm the slap dash careless one hereabouts. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

(@Primefac: you reversed all of them, where are you in all of this?) Okay, obviously Leah Totton would be one of those things that is a discussion that ends with a no consensus close; you have valid points and I have made mine. Marian Wenzel was a good accept though I would have to disagree with you on the B-class rating there. B-class to me is "almost GA" and I don't really think that article is that level (though maybe my pessimistic soul could use someone telling me it's supposed to be a C). It is my experience that most new articles range from stub to start to C-class and rarely B-class because of referencing guidelines and other requirements dependent on the Wikiproject member assessing it. Indeed, your point about AfC not having to fix every problem out there is valid, but perhaps you could be the one to apply maintenance templates or copyedit request templates to the accepted article, so that other people (other than NPP...) can get to look at it? As for the ce thing, I would suggest using "cmt" for talk pages (to keep other people from going "that's not a copyedit, that's a reply!) or even "r" but ultimately that's up to you. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 01:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

As you say, we are talked out on this, and have nicely seen each other's perspective. I accept your initial apology: to do otherwise would be unfair. It was edgy of me to point out the mass revert tool as lacking finesse, but I have no intention at all of pointing to any person, or spending further energy on whether it was the appropriate tool to use. I think you are perseverating about the points on which you are correct, but I understand that's human nature. Let's get on with something else. Take care. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The extremely imprecise standard at AfC is to not pass something unless it has a reasonable chance at AfD. This can be interpreted in various ways: I don't think any of us pass articles that will probably be deleted, but that just requires a 51% chance of passing--and it is hard to guess what will happen at AfD. A year ago I did not pass anything unless I would be willing to take credit for it or improve it to that point, but that leaves way too much undecided, because relatively few people improve their articles & altho I & a few others tried to improve everything in our fields of interest, it was way too much for a very few people.

In the last year, I've been doing it differently: I will accept anything I thought clearly would be accepted at AfD, regardless of fixable weaknesses. The place to get articles fixed, if the original author does't quickly fix them in response to a proper personalized notice, is in mainspace. I've gradually gotten more likely to accept major weaknesses unless I can fix them very quickly. By now, I incline to pass, if I think references can be found sufficient to shown notability, even if they are not immediately present. (Of course, this is based on 8 years experience at this, and I only work that way in fields I understand well enough to quickly tell, which is about half the submissions). Even if there are no references at all, I will often make a quick try to add one that indicates significance and will meet BLPPROD, if I think it worth looking. In practice, though, I do expect that about 90% at least of what I accept will in fact pass AfD, and I think almost none have been deleted, unless a very few where I've carelessly missed a non-obvious copyvio.

If something partially duplicates a current article, and adds significant material, I accept it and place a merge tag on it--rejecting because of a need for a merge is in my opinion a plain error, tho the software allows it. The place to merge is in mainspace. I do not reject articles with malformed refs--they can and will be fixed by one of the many excellent wikignomes. If a BLP needs better inline refs, and I think the present ones can be put inline, I accept it, this again can be fixed in mainspace. If a AfC has a corresponding article in another WP that appears roughly adequate, even by GoogleTranslate, , I accept and put an {{Improve Language}} tag and a interwiki link on it; this too can be fixed in mainspace.

There is one thing I never do: I do not reject using the built-in reasons by themselves if I think there's a reasonable chance of improvement. Any good faith editor who isn't missing the point entirely deserves a personal response.

But all this is how I cope with the existing system. I think all of the above pretty much nonsense--AfC should be totally eliminated immediately, except for working through the existing articles, with all new articles going straight to NPP. They can be more accurately worked on in a single stream. We might perhaps use draft space for ones that come to NPP, and have promise, but will not currently pass AfD, the way we used to do it with userspace drafts.

I'll look at the examples above, but that will take a day or two. DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, DGG. One mistake (of many) I made was not asking you earlier to consider rewording the Totton decline. As far as what you have added here, I don't have anything further to add, because I agree. At this point, I think your time might be better allocated to other tasks, as mine shall. I am not soliciting a review of the above examples, although I'm not fearful of it if you see some reason to go there - as you say, the standard is somewhat imprecise, I know I've acted in good faith, I know I've have been reasonably respectful of policy but not overly rigid in leveraging it, and I know I have acted with reasonable diligence, and that I carefully considered the guidelines in the effort I put forth. And I know I don't get everything right, even though we all try very hard. What I do think though is that it might be a nice gesture from the perspective of whoever initially put the effort into the Draft, as well as respectful of the living person involved, is to consider rewording the contention that Totton "is not a medical practitioner" because I think the weight of evidence suggests this was a mistake. I may not be right though, so I am just going to chill about this, after making this request. FeatherPluma (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Additional comments

1. Further review finds that specific energy was put into pushing an AfD on Nuremberg: The Nazis Facing their Crimes as a WP:PROD which is only supposed to be for "an uncontroversial deletion". This was NOT part of the mass revert, but it seems common sense that the article was specifically sought out and found rather thaan stumbled on, and was then pushed as WP:PROD. The guideline reads, "PROD must only be used if no opposition is to be expected." The article at the time of ROD had a Variety review WP:RS, which I think the deletion rationale must have rushed by. The PROD also missed the significance of the reference from the French Embassy, stating that the eminent professor who made the film is "considering the consequences of using film for the purposes of justice and memory." Well, OK, if you don't read these references and don't then think, you might not realize what this means. Benefit of the doubt and all. Mass redaction tools, contemporaneous WP:PROD efforts. I'm not saying anything or coming to ANY conclusion, I'm not. I just want to focus on the encyclopedic content and having interesting and well sourced information, but I do confess that I do hope les nazis face à leurs crimes - survives on Wikipedia, because I think it clearly meets the guidelines, is interesting, and maybe somebody will see it or become more interested in the justice and memory of documentation because of the article here. I do have some learning to do about what is NPP, maybe who are NPP, and whether NPP really follows WP:N as written (which standard I am comfortable with - in the way I support all REASONABLE standards that are relevant to the specific circumstance) or hypothetically has NPP migrated to some other standard, and if so, what is it? FeatherPluma (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

2. Draft:Zencap has references that provide substantial sourcing from Tagesspiegel, Der Spiegel, and Handelsblatt. These are all well-regarded, well-recognized, edited, high circulation classic media. It also has a reference from Información. I wonder if there was any time taken during the mass revert to look at this article closely. In my opinion, this level of sourcing seems to meet WP:N. Not that the article is perfect, but the written policy doesn't require that it is perfect. I don't think there are there legitimate pressing concerns about advertisement tone, or spoofery, or copyvio etc. Just my opinion. Asked the mass revertor for a helpful explanation. FeatherPluma (talk) 05:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

3. Wikipedia "as a community" (well, sort of) went out of its way to ask me for comment about AfC. I opted out as I don't personally like questions that a) set the framework, and b) I myself wouldn't ask people to guess things that data can answer better. Nevertheless, I did take an interest, and I had a look at both Signpost pieces that arose from the questions. I think I saw earnest appeals to help with the new page backlog, get new AfC volunteers etc., and reassuring language about "not getting your nose cut off if you make a mistake". It seems though that the daily politics of this are simply that that the good people at NPP see it as the one true path. They are quite explicit about this. A brief exposure will find NPP folk with strong opinions that AfC is "worse than useless" and is a "walled garden". Perhaps they are right. Or, hypothetically, whether NPP were the only path or not, if the threshold for new pages to advance to mainspace is in practice being set higher than actually stated by the guidelines then a large number of editors isn't being utilized on improving articles after getting to mainspace, in acceptable but imperfect form. The result may be inadvertently fostering a backlog through exclusionism, exceeding the written community standard, without concomitant adequate hand-holding. If this is were happening against/beyond the existing stated guidelines, this is "consensus stonewalling" and itself a "walled garden". If I remember right, one NPP member suggested "one in 50 Draft articles should be advanced". Well, I've looked at over 1000 Drafts in the past few days and I strongly disagree. The predictable result of this "exclusionism beyond the guideline" is that initiating editor talent is being leveraged from fishermen to people who put effort into fish that are left to rot. I point to the guidelines which also say that if the article hasn't got any chance of ever progressing we should be making that clear - but that's another area that's getting collectively avoided. So articles are languishing with technical "template stamps" that they are inadequate one way or another - but the advice being given on how to advance things is far from transparent when you look at the cited benchmarks. I suggest that there may be a resultant failure to use willing volunteers properly, and to thus bolster their numbers by treating their work with dignity (or at least minimally according to the guidelines as written). It is very inauspicious if guidelines are gradually extended by in-group consensus, and become arcanely disconnected with written policy. Looking at history, we might discern that the one true path to stunting progress is the "single, best way". FeatherPluma (talk) 05:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC) (This section of 3 comments was updated. FeatherPluma (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC))

Leah Nicole Totton

• About your request to move Leah Nicole Totton to Leah Totton, there is nothing at either name except a few deleted redirects. There is a page at Draft:Leah Nicole Totton. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to attend to my request to rename the article. The request was made to correspond with MOS guidelines, but naming it per that guideline was being blocked somehow. The article has now been moved by other editors to Draft status. These editors have (carelessly - is that a fair term to use here??) enshrined the libelous notions given in the reason for refusal that 1. Dr Totton should be labeled as having a "GCSE degree" (sic) and 2. that she is not a medical practioner (sic). There is apparently something at NPP and CSD (see above) that makes this right. But I don't think it's right - unless the General Medical Council search is wrong some peculiar way. But then Wikipedia itself on The Apprentice page would also be wrong - it says there that she's a doctor (yes, I know Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, I'm just saying this is a bit bizarre in my opinion. But everyone can see from the above posting that I am both careless and uneducated in NPP and CSD.)

Reference Errors on 31 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Draft:Jacqueline Harvey page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, well that Draft that wait a little while I sort out some other things first. FeatherPluma (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Alap Momin

You approved my article and then someone deleted it. I'm confused why this happened and who this person is that deleted something approved.

20:22, 31 January 2015 Nick (talk | contribs) deleted page Alap Momin (R2: Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace) 20:08, 31 January 2015 Primefac (talk | contribs) moved page Alap Momin to Draft:Alap Momin over redirect (Reverting mass of dubious acceptances)

Yes, sorry. Your article page has been subjected in the mass revert back to Draft status (not full deletion per se), and I think the redirect page was reverted back to Dälek, where it had gone before. None of your content is lost. I am very sorry your article is caught in the middle of this. I will get back to your article and try to help you fairly soon. Most or all the articles I approved were mass reverted. I think I understand how you probably feel. I will work on this as soon as I can. I do thank you in hopeful anticipation of your understanding and patience. I am going through these issues one by one - but your message will have me push the article up my list. Regards. FeatherPluma (talk) 05:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on this. I was unable to find any additional information on what a mass revert is. Is there anything I can do to improve the article so that it can be reinstated? I have references that I can add to every one of the Producer/Engineer credits which would be though discogs.com. If there is anything I can do to speed up this process please let me know. Thanks again!

I have not forgotten you. I'm glad on looking at the Draft to see that you are still at it, improving. Awesome. I am mulling over the best approach. I know what is really wanted, and I've found a couple of promising things, but let me dig around and get things nice if I can. It won't be too long - well, you know what I mean. Best.FeatherPluma (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi I've been making some updates but I'm not quite finished yet. There are some things which were added to the page that I don't know how they got there or if I should add anything additional to them. In the history I don't see who and when these things were added they are located just above the contents box. NYT[7], NYT2[8], Roy Christopher[9]:217-220, Faroe[10] Gavin Mueller[11], Brandon Gentry[12], Shapiro[13]:1985 Any ideas of what I should do with these 7 new references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellokaryn (talk • contribs) 05:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Hellokaryn: Thanks for working on it. These other things are me gathering up references. It's messy right now, but I plan to get it looking neat later. If you want to add some content, either based on these references, or directly quoted and attributed to the sources, by all means, but I think it's fine to get your tasking done first. That said, pitch in as much as you can. I've also reformatted sections a bit. Best. FeatherPluma (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for helping. I've been working with Alap to refine this. Some of the things that you added are not really necessary. TIC really should not be there as a separate section since it was not his band. It was just another album he mixed. Alap Now was only in MRC so it might not be unnecessary as its own section. I'm still adding references and I'll check those other ones you listed to see if I can create more content for them. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellokaryn (talk • contribs) 01:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting any mistakes I've introduced. I'd like to see this wp:blp make it to mainspace, so let me know if I can help. By the way, foreign language reviews of his work would be very acceptable as wp:rs. Is there anything substantial in e.g. German/French/Czech etc., because I see some buzz from there? FeatherPluma (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for helping edit! It looks like the page has been accepted. I still have edits I'm making and will clean up any edits you made as well with the advice of Alap based on his better knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellokaryn (talk • contribs) 02:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Dude, I am VERY pleased. Thank you for all your patience and your helpful persistence. FeatherPluma (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Siyaram's

Hi FeatherPluma. This is Victor Foli. I was always interested in getting my piece of work published in Wikipedia, therefore I started my first article, talking about a brand called "Siyaram", famous in India for their apparels.

It seems that it was reviewed & accepted by you on 31st January 2015 and given an assessment of "start-class" . Oddly it seems, the same was deleted by another admin after couple of hours. Frankly, I just started to settle with the way things work around in Wikipedia, so can you help me understand on what might have actually happened or to whom should I get in touch for a possible solution. The following timestamp was registered, when I went on to see the Siyaram's talk page:

20:16, 31 January 2015 Nick (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Siyaram's (R2: Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace: G8: Talk page of a deleted page) 20:07, 31 January 2015 Primefac (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:Siyaram's to Draft talk:Siyaram's (Reverting mass of dubious acceptances) (revert)

Thanks.

Yes, Victor Foli, and sorry. I would like to emphasize that I appreciate the work you have contributed to the article. The Draft:Siyaram's page is one of many subjected to a "mass revert" back to Draft status. None of your content is lost. I am very sorry your article is caught in the middle of this "mass revert". Several excellent articles have already been returned to mainspace as time and re-analysis permits. There are references from all sorts of reasonable sources in the Siyaram's proposal, including Economic Times (Indiatimes), and Deccan Herald. In my opinion, and you need to understand that it's my personal opinion at this point and not consensus yet for this article itself, based on the guidelines as written (which are supposed to drive Wikipedia community decisions and facilitate consensus) the revert to Draft status may have been incorrect. Unfortunately, I recommend that we now need to patiently work through the system. First, may I extend an apology to you - I think I understand how you probably feel. Second, I will work on Siyaram's as soon as I can. I think the best way to get this article advanced is for me (or another helpful editor) to go through it line by line, and make sure it's as good quality as we can both get it. I am aware of some very experienced editors who do spectacular work in advancing Drafts that have languished for long periods, but other first options for you if I can't help myself include resources at wp:Teahouse and the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron - you could ask for help from either resource. I do thank you in hopeful anticipation of your understanding and patience. I am not promising anything, but let's see what can be done. Regards. FeatherPluma (talk) 05:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Victor Foli: I have adjusted the format of the Draft. I trimmed elements that may have been seen by an acerbic eye (not mine in particular) as wp:peacock or as over-extending. I hope you find the modification satisfactory. There are a considerable number of additional good sources about this topic, so you may eventually want to add back content along with new citations. I have as a courtesy to the reverting editor notified of the intent to readvance to mainspace in the next few days, subject of course to further input. FeatherPluma (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Victor foli: There's an update on your talk page. 02:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

To editors here inquiring about their missing accepted drafts

Hello editors here inquiring about their missing accepted drafts (and FeatherPluma),

I and fellow reviewer User:Primefac were involved in a dispute yesterday with FeatherPluma regarding acceptances of reviews. Primefac ended up one-by-one reverting all of these acceptances, and I am sorry you got caught in this mess. If you came here because you are looking for your missing draft, please feel free to leave a note on my talk page asking for a speedy re-review and I will get to it as soon as possible (or find someone else to do it for you). You can also use the {{help me}} template or come to IRC for help. Many mistakes were made on my end yesterday and in the spirit of WP:BRD I hope it doesn't happen again. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 22:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The chronology isn't that a dispute caused a problem. The chronology is that a mass reversion was performed (see the edit comment) without discussion and without an explanation to the original editors whose work was affected. I am not sure if there was a dispute, dear alpha dog, you "rolled" this puppy's work. I appreciate you now reaching out, and I have taken you up on the offer to help with the solution by looking at Draft:Siyaram's. (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Small nucleolar RNA, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Substrate. 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) 09:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. FeatherPluma (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Leah Totton

Hello, Onel5969,
I politely request a rereview of your decline, as well as a much more detailed explanation. You assessed the topic as not meeting notability. I am slightly perturbed by this because I have read the guidelines very carefully, and this analysis does not seem to correspond at all to the very clear definition within Wikipedia guidelines. It appears that the topic has received dozens of mentions in edited media, which treat of the topic very substantially (not brief mention etc). Some of these references are already within the citation list (per guidelines, not all have to be). You have specifically asked for additional wp:rs. I gently challenge you on this, not in behalf of the article, but as inconsistent with written policy. You also contend that the topic is being worded as an advert. This is a subjective assessment, and I respect your opinion, but I would therefore ask for a more complete explanation of what exactly you find WP:npov or inappropriate wp:tone, or that you would continue to contend after reassessing now as "reading with unencyclopedic tone and like as advertisement" (or equivalent). This article has been subject to this type of contention repeatedly, and I am determined to work collaboratively on specifics to resolve the concern(s). Again, this is not in behalf of the topic, but a challenge as to whether this decline is guideline based. To do this, I am therefore politely requesting exact information, rather than broad characterization without any detail. Last, I would ask that you restore the redaction added by DGG to the erroneous contentions within his initial decline comment. DGG graciously admitted that the comments were wrong (see the edit history), and struck through the comment. Perhaps inadvertently, you reverted his strike through: did you do so by mistake? FeatherPluma (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi FeatherPluma - First, I have no clue why DGG's comment was "unstruck". I simply declined the article. I've "pinged" him here, since I never futz with another editor's comments, I'm sure he'll take care of it. Regarding notability, the first cite is simply her bio from The Apprentice, and is very skimpy at that. The second is simply verification of her being a doctor. 3-6 & 10 are citations which deal with a single event, and are not in-depth articles about the subject. #7 is a good citation. #8 is a dead link. #9 is from an obscure source. Not sure what 11 & 12 are. So, out of the 12, you basically have 2 good citations (all the ones which are about a single event count as 1, and #7). That does not meet the notability requirement as per the guidelines. While there are multiple sources, they are not significant coverage, due to the limited scope of the articles. Statements like, "Her participation in the show, the business she set up, her advocacy of improved quality and integrity in the cosmetic treatment industry, and her personal life have been followed in the media", "... won a £250,000 prize for business acumen ...", and the details of the clinic are promotional in nature. The non-encyclopedic tone would be also be characterized by those statements, as well as the "However...". The declination specifically follows the guidelines. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The topic is not irremediable. What you need are references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements

Hello, Onel5969,

I think it might be helpful if we make sure we are using the same guideline, so here is guideline language of the "basic criteria" whereby a topic is "presumptively" (per guideline) notable as a wp:blp: QUOTING --

"Basic criteria"

"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other."

Do you have a specific reason to either disagree with the guideline, or a specific reason that the topic of the Draft wp:blp does not meet wp:n? I would appreciate you clearing up my confusion. As you can easily see, the topic received attention from The Telegraph, The Mail, The Irish Times, the BBC, The Express, and multiple trade sources (the last isn't relevant re notability). I also disagree - this topic has not received single event coverage. Media coverage has extended over 6 months by one benchmark, and over a year by another, as it has covered both 1. winning the competition (for business acumen) and 2. setting up the clinic in the face of opposition and 3. advocating for better standards in the UK cosmetic industry. I do understand notability comes first, but I notice that you are not explaining your other contentions - "unencyclopedic tone" and "advertising". FeatherPluma (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a debate. I don't disagree with the guideline, I'm following it. I explained it quite clearly. I also clearly explained tone and advertising as well, which you seem to be ignoring. So, I'm pretty much done with attempting to explain it to you. Take care. Onel5969 (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I know it isn't a debate. It's a genuine attempt to see what you are thinking, so that I can collaboratively resolve the issue. In my opinion, you have not specified your advertising concern whatsoever, but have made a generalization. Please point to the exact problem. I will be pleased to change anything that you can point to. As to wp:n, I also diagree, and I have explained why. I am not stupid, and I'm sorry if I am being a pain to youyou need to explain your viewpoint more clearly please. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I do not need to explain it more clearly. I've already explained it quite clearly, quite specifically, and gave examples. There is no issue to resolve. Happy editing. Onel5969 (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

OK. It's clear, for you. Can I therefore take it that the topic is irremediable? I am sorry if you think I am pushing, but I am merely trying to really grasp things, and collect examples of how Wikipedia behaves. My purpose is to see if I can help with the article. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

FeatherPluma, the topic is in my opinion not irremediable. the subject is probably notable, so it's a matter of tone. (You will understand that we have had considerable difficult with attempted advertising by plastic surgeons and others in related specialties, and we are therefore carefully on the watch to prevent more of it.) I suggest the following:

1. Ref . 11 does not state that the firm's consultant surgeon is a former BAAPS advisor. It is also unclear from the article whether the appointment was made before or after the criticism from the Society. (& the use of "however" implies that there is a contradiction,and also implies that this refutes the criticism. This should be avoided
2. Section 3 is promotional. Even the sentence on her not treating teen agers is relevant only if she is unique in that regard. Whom she dated is not encyclopedic content; it would only be appropriate if she were a media figure, and including it makes her seem like one, and thus makes the article look like advertising. .
3. User her name as little as practical -- "She" is a good substitute.

Be aware that when we approve an article at AfC, we do this on the basis that it is likely to be kept at AfD. This article will very possibly be challenged there, and you would therefore be well advised to make it as strong as possible. Only the community can decide, and the community is sometimes unpredictable. They've kept worse, and thrown out better. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, DGG,

1. As you suggested, I removed, "however". The sources state he is a BAAPS advisor (e.g. present ref #14, explicitly: "BAAPS Consultant Plastic Surgeon Mr Taimur Shoaib as head of training"). The recruitment date and whether it was a response to criticism is not completely clear from the sources. As written, it did not necessarily imply any particular chronology or causal linkage, but I understand that rewording avoids ambiguity, and your suggestion is an improvement.
2. The sources support the statement about not treating teenagers. The sources are unambivalent that this is widely/routinely performed elsewhere, which is essentially the benchmark you mention. The sources are unambivalent that she spoke out strongly against it, and the sources place her opinion in adjacency to stating the prevailing practise.
3. Participation on the show, subsequent TV appearance (will add reference when I relocate it), a Derry city gala dinner with the Tánaiste (within reference list already), ongoing media coverage etc etc indicate that your depiction as a "media figure" is in fact most probably apt. And here we run into esthetics, and weighting considerations. I am neutral about now adding that label. While it would be reasonable at a fact level to do so, it is esthetically uncompelling in my opinion. Expressly depicting the topic as a media figure is mildly problematic, as overt language to underpin that precise element is not manifestly prominent within sources. It is situationally implied by the media attention. I am (obviously) not opposed to any edits by anyone to resolve the issue. There is no reasonable expectation within Wikipedia that responsibility devolves to a contributing editor to definitively reconcile every aspect within Draft space. In my opinion, this mild (not egregious) esthetic and weighting concern may indeed be valid but should (not "could") occur after mainspace accessibility to the broader editor pool that is active within that space.
4. We agree that whom she dated is not of any weighty importance. At some point the mundane descends into irrelevancy. In carefully considering previously this proposed content, in this case the on-off-on dating has received repeated media attention. At least 6 additional full articles in the "standard edited press" center upon it. These were not added due to over-referencing concerns. The media coverage mentions the effect of career pressures for both (minor?) media figures versus their romantic inclination. This career pressure component is not presently within the proposed article text, as it was judged as undue weight. Somebody could disagree, and it could be added to the article text based on sources. The present mention that the two media figures have dated is brief, non-judgmental, supported by sources, and is perhaps reasonable given Wikipedia's explicit definition of "substantial", which is unreservedly not "weighty importance" (qualitative; and mainly judgment based) but is "not just passing mention" (quantitative). It is possible that a middle road on this aspect touches on it but doesn't belabor it. It is possible that exclusion would be contrary to the policy of touching upon all significant aspects. Again, "significant" could be discussed and resolved in mainspace - there is no gross error of fact in the wp:blp, and I'd suggest that ultimately it can encyclopedically be decided by others in either direction.
5. As far as pronoun and proper name, I respect your input, and you will not be surprised that advice from different quarters is at odds.
6. Reading your comments here and elsewhere, I sincerely thank you for your input.
7. Once I add the TV appearance reference, I will step away from this Draft. I think that fresh eyes and minds would be better. FeatherPluma (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Article advanced to mainspace. I'm out. FeatherPluma (talk) 03:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Revert

Hi, to justify my revert a little more: as I see it animal bonds are just plain pair bonding. The bromance article really ought only to be about pop-culture stuff, since that's the only circumstance in which anyone would use the term over friendship, bonding, life partnership, or similar. Chris Smowton (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Chris Smowton - Well, that makes me smile, because it just does not seem so, as "someone" is using it more broadly (!) - in the biology world - and "someone" else in the political world is using it metaphorically, to refer to like minded nations. So I wonder how we can say "only circumstance in which anyone would use the term..." I think you mean you think we should focus on the primary use, and not go off on tangents, and when I think about it, maybe these metaphorical extensions could be considered dictionary rather than encyclopedic content. I am OK with the revert. Initially sent without signature from mobile device that does not permit usual signing routine. FP - Subsequently re-edited and signed. FeatherPluma (talk) 05:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bromance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Modi. 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) 08:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. FeatherPluma (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Bromance thanks

Heya! I was previously a delete/merge with male bonding on Bromance, but I think your edits have made it worth keeping as a separate page. Wanted to directly say thanks. 7daysahead (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, 7daysahead, Thank you for reaching out. FeatherPluma (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Personal attack

this edit note was completely inappropriate. Jytdog (talk) 13:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

No personal attack. It's just my opinion. I'm not attacking you at all. I have no reason to attack you, and no interest in doing so. Period. Please take a moment to look at whether somebody is doing a series of edits to gradually improve an article rather than reverting them within minutes. That way we are less apt to get into a smoke filled room. I will be trying to add several items to the article - for several developments and corrections. If you want to help, read up some. FeatherPluma (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

it was a completely inappropriate comment on contributor, not content. and the political commentary was off-topic and inflammatory. (fwiw, i agree with the sentiment) but hey, it is now there in the edit note, unchangeable for all time as a record of your lack of self-control. Jytdog (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Yup. Sorry about the comment for all time. But it's not a personal attack. I chose to make the edit summary because I find immediately labeling my edit a reference "pile" extremely disrespectful. I'm very happy to back off if you don't go piling crap on me again. BTW, it is clear that you then hovered over the page, ready to pounce. You don't have the high ground here, so let's both back off. I hope you agree. There is plenty of actual work to do. FeatherPluma (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

there is no excuse - none - for that lack of self-control. That is 100% on you. There are no two sides to that. Our bumping into one another happens all the time, and can be handled in completely simple and calm ways. That you are excusing your lack of self control is a bad sign. Done here. Jytdog (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You are right. There are no 2 sides, whatsoever. Smile. FeatherPluma (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

you continue to miss the point. you did an objectively bad thing. you did that, you own that. if you want to have a separate conversation with me about something you think i did wrong, you are free to do that. but nothing - nothing - removes your responsibility to control yourself. Jytdog (talk) 14:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Bro, I've apologized. I own my shit pile. I did not miss your point, I acknowledged it. "You are right. There are no 2 sides, whatsoever. Smile." FeatherPluma (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I took your comment as sarcastic. Based on your comment, I apologize for taking it that way, and accept yours. Jytdog (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

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.

Bromance

added a link pointing to The Good Guys

Gastrointestinal stromal tumor

added a link pointing to KIT

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Done FeatherPluma (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited T-lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tissues. 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) 08:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Done FeatherPluma (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)