User talk:Animalparty/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Animalparty. 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.

Hey, you reported my page for an autobiography. It is actually about a famous person in Hong Kong. He started a petition against destroying walking trails and I want to create this page of him, so that more people are informed about what he does and try to support his cause. He is doing a great thing, the government is planning to destroy the mountain walking trail to build a hotel. Please help me keep our page, not for me but for the people of Hong Kong.

Please take this into consideration, A Fellow Wikipedia Member

LinusNg (talk) 06:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@LinusNg: please see the messages on your talk page for details, but for a subject to have a dedicated article, it must be notable, meaning it has received significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. The article appeared to be a school kid, listing trivia about whom he has a crush on, etc., and frankly, why should anyone care? If he is famous, provide sources (e.g. newspaper articles, not self-published content or social network pages). Please read Notability (people) and the policy on biographies of living people. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mitsubishi Magna. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Human sexuality. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stack Overflow. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Animalparty. You have new messages at Talk:J. R. R. Tolkien.
Message added 20:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

De728631 (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Deepak Chopra. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing my recent edits to the Vasco Tanner article! I'm aware of the issues in using self-published documents, primary sources, and tributes as sources; unfortunately I haven't found many other options for Vasco Tanner. I'll be working on this page over the next week or so. Would you like me to tell you when I'm done adding to the page and help me maintain NPOV? I suppose any more specific discussion should go on the article's talk page. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU):, sounds good: I've got it on my Watchlist, and will contribute what I can. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Avoiding dangerous climate change. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for finding that additional info on Ann Bowling; I'd love to learn more about how to find things like obits that are behind paywalls... what search methodology allowed you to find that article in the first place? (I did a pretty extensive general search but never found that tidbit.) Montanabw^(talk) 21:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Montanabw: I believe I found it through Google Scholar using her full name, or possibly Web of Science through a local university. Happy to contribute! --Animalparty! (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Join us!
	Women Scientists - worldwide online edit-a-thon - a Year of Science initiative Hosts: Women in Red, Women Scientists Sponsor: WikiEdu April-December 2016 #wikiwomeninred #yearofscience #contentgap

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1 metre. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• folio edition, was reprinted in a handsome facsimile with an introduction by W.T. Stearn in 1969.}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Schulze method. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, are you still interested in the Chamberlain documents you requested? I have the oral history and the works list as PDFs. You can e-mail me for them or if you'd prefer, I can upload them to my Google Drive. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

On 20 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Katherine Sanford, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that biologist Katherine Sanford was the first person to successfully clone a mammal cell in vitro? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Katherine Sanford. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Katherine Sanford), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Worm^TT(talk) 09:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Animalparty. It's great to see you took an interest in one of the more amusing kerfuffles in Pennsylvania history. I will note that your assertion that the Salus-Grady libel law banned caricaturing individuals as animals is incorrect—the Philly.com article that you cited got it wrong. The bill that proposed the caricature ban was separate from the Salus-Grady libel law, and only the latter was enacted. You can read text of the bill for yourself, and I also updated the article to explain the distinction. Best, Altamel (talk) 06:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Altamel: Thank you for any efforts to correct any errors. I created the Walt McDougall article, but haven't done much reading on the Libel Law (the article can definitely be expanded to make a complete and balanced article). I did remove your additions on Pennypacker's other achievements, as they did not seem relevant to an article about a single issue. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 06:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. I disagree about the removal, as I believe the paragraph was necessary for balance. I don't want the reader to conclude from the article that Pennypacker was an authoritarian from this one event. Since much of the article is about Pennypacker's temperament, I don't think a brief paragraph showing his better side is irrelevant. Would you have any strong objections if I reverted? Altamel (talk) 07:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Altamel: I've moved this discussion to the article talk page. --Animalparty! (talk) 07:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

On 28 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Walt McDougall, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when Pennsylvania legislators pushed a bill banning caricatures of politicians as animals, cartoonist Walt McDougall (pictured) drew them as a tree, a beer mug, and assorted vegetables? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Walt McDougall. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Walt McDougall), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:ExxonMobil climate change controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome and your edit to the Albert Power page. I will be adding more content over time. Jjpower27 (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:MMR vaccine controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Congrats for starting this article. I've contemplated it for years but didn't think readers on Wikipedia would be interested. Unfortunately her claim to fame was her murder by L. Bennison and then him killing himself. Their story is similar to Adele Ritchie, who murdered another woman over a man, and the suicide of Broadway star Christine Norman who left her fortune to her dog. Norman is very elusive and hard to find info on. But I digress, thanks again for the Lawrence entry, much appreciated from this reader. All My Best.Koplimek (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Koplimek: Thanks for the kind words. From my cursory searches of old newspapers & magazines, Lawrence seems to have been sufficiently known in theatre circles in the US and abroad (though perhaps not a household name) even before her death, and thus a brief article that balances her life and career (contemporary notability) with her untimely death (current/retrospective notability) is certainly possible. I wouldnt let what Wikipedia readers might find interesting determine too much what gets written: if a subject is notable, it should be included to increase access to knowledge, for specialists and curious generalists alike. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouraging response. I sometimes ponder whether to keep going on editing as I'm growing tired of the criticism. I love editing. But I agree WP should be a learning experience, to teach that which a person may not know or have heard of. If that is achieved then all we do on WP is accomplishing its job. Thanks again and happy editing. Koplimek (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Animalparty, fyi I've nominated Jude Quinn for deletion [[1]] Thanks, Mick gold (talk) 09:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Joseph William Holder. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I have just made a favorable comment about your work, but without mentioning your name, at [2]. If you wish, I will add it, but I didn't want to draw you into the discussion unless you wanted to. DGG ( talk ) 14:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I made some changes to the article Taym ibn Murrah. Is it better now?

Regards. Leo1pard (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

An editor with whom I had dispute in ANI, went through my contributions. He doesn't have any knowledge of the subjects. He admitted that he was following my edits. --Bulletproof Batman (talk) 07:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Notifying all named accounts who have edited this article this year. There is a discussion of whether this article should contain foreign language palindromes. If you would like to comment the thread is Talk:Palindrome#Non-English_palindromes_2 Meters (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Just an FYI that the prod you endorsed for this article was contested. I went ahead and listed it at AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Kadie Lynn needs editing... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigman2700 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The page has been successfully reviewed by Meno25, 6 hours ago, as it says in my notification. There is no need to attach nobility warning, unless you are admin. Thanks. I will remove it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigman2700 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bigman2700: A new page review simply means one editor did not find obvious problems (e.g. copyright violations or attack pages) in patrolling recently created articles. Any article can be tagged for cleanup at any time if problems are identified, and users do not need to be Administrators to do so. If you cannot address the problems I have brought up, I will nominate the article for deletion. Lastly, just FYI when commenting on any Talk page it is conventional to post new comments at the bottom of the page. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@Animalparty: I understand! I am new to Wikipedia. Thanks for your help!

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ocepeia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to this page. I couldn't figure out how to get the References into the actual "Reference" section. I'm very grateful. --Patty Mooney (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The taxon Thermoleophilia a class of Actinobacteria has been up-graded from a subclass Thermoleophilidae.

This taxon is has been published in Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology second edition, vol. 5 2012 and subsequently been validated by the Validation list no. 151 of the IJSEM online. The "International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology" (IJSEM) is the official journal of record for bacterial names of the "International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes" (ICSP) of the International Union of Microbiological Societies (IUMS) and is the official journal of record for novel prokaryotic taxa as outlined by the "International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes".

Because it is the official journal, it has the widest possible audience and peer review. Also this was done for three other classes of the Actinobacteria that have been up-graded in taxonomic rank, haven't gotten around to the fifth as yet.

Videsh Ramsahai (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Videsh Ramsahai: Okay, sounds good. In cases like this, when the only change is a rank, it probably would have been better to simply move the existing Thermoleophilidae to the new title Thermoleophilia, to preserve edit history, Talk pages, etc. Similarly, if we have an article on a species that gets put into a new genus, the subject remains the same even if the article needs a new name. See Wikipedia:Moving a page for more info. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Oooh ok, so then how should I do that, because in order to redirect I had to put in "#REDIRECT Thermoleophilia" in the Thermoleophilidae page. So I should have on the Thermoleophilidae page rename it too Thermoleophilia and create a new redirect page Thermoleophilidae. If so how can I fix this now as I altered it wrongly?Videsh Ramsahai (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Videsh Ramsahai: When you move a page (in the future), it automatically creates a redirect from the old to the new. See How to move a page. Restoring the page history is a bit more tricky, and may not even be worth it if there isn't substantial content or history, but it's explained at Fixing cut and paste moves. A simpler solution, in this case, might be to simply restore the prior Thermoleophilidae, then request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move Thermoleophilidae to the title Thermoleophilia (requested moves, done by administrators, are usually required when the target title has text or more than a few edits). Once a move is made, subsequent edits can clarify the new rank, classification, etc. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits and notes. I will correct my view and look to add more encyclopedia type pages.

Tpizon72 (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Animalparty. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria.

• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator.

 Administrator note You have been grandfathered to this group based on prior patrolling activity - the technical flag for the group will be added to your account after the next software update. You do not need to apply at WP:PERM. 20:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Animalparty, I just wanted to thank you for using this template. I monitor every time it gets added to an article due to the complications of getting a good result and you are its most active user (indeed only regular user). I wrote software to automate the process of adding it by the thousands (there are 100s of thousands of candidate articles that could use this template), but it still takes a lot of manual work and I haven't had time to run it recently. Anyway, is there any way I could encourage you when adding the template to always use the |sname=? The template does work without it, but if the article ever gets renamed then the search recipe also gets redone and may break. For example if George Stewardson Brady was ever renamed to George Stewardson Brady (scientist) then the "(scientist)" becomes part of the search name, and it won't work. Thus |sname= locks in the name to search on, regardless of changes to the current article title. -- GreenC 17:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Green Cardamom: Thank you for making this template! I feel it's a great way to find rare and hard-to-Google material (e.g. images and primary sources). I had no idea I was the most active user. I'll definitely add the sname parameter with regularity from now on. All the best, --Animalparty! (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I have news articles and several photographs from the 1950's & 1960's and more proof but I can't seem to figure out to upload them, any suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce blau (talk • contribs) 18:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Bruce blau: If the photographs are in the public domain, or you are the copyright holder, you may upload them to WikiMedia Commons ("Commons") with an appropriate license. If you have news articles, you do not need to upload them (in fact this likely would be a copyright violation), but you can cite them, for instance with the {{cite news}} or {{cite book}} template. A common way to include inline citations is <ref>Citation</ref>. Sources need not be available online, but they must be verifiable by other users, so standard bibliographical data like author, date, title, publication, and page number(s) are essential. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for more info. (P.S. I've moved this discussion to the bottom of my Talk Page, as per convention new messages go at the bottom to keep things organized). --Animalparty! (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Animalparty, I wasn't sure whether you'd seen that the nominator has responded that the issues you raised in your original review have been addressed. When you get a chance, I imagine you'll want to return to see whether the changes have made all the necessary improvements, and what else might need to be done to get the article to meet the GA criteria, if anything. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

A re-ping on the same matter, everything looks done, just waiting on you to wrap it up. Wizardman 16:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Walt McDougall you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Margalob -- Margalob (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, this is Margalob (not an automated message this time). I've reviewed your article, and I really liked it overall. Walt seems like a fascinating guy. There were a few minor problems that I found, so I put the review on hold, giving you seven days and seven nights to fix them. My review is here: Talk:Walt McDougall/GA1. Let me know if you have any questions. Margalob (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Since I forgot to officially put it on hold until now, you've got 7 days from today.Margalob (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Animalparty.

Based on the patrols you made of new pages during a qualifying period in 2016, your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed.

New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Animalparty. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Animalparty,

Breaking the back of the backlog

We now have 804 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

---

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .

Thank you for your help, advice & welcome Bulverton (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

answer given here : Talk:Ommatoiulus sabulosus aimatopodus.

Cheers, -Fraf (talk) 10:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that after reviewing your page Walt McDougal, and leaving it on hold for over a week, I didn't see you making any edits. I finally failed it, because you weren't responding. Sorry about that. Margalob (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

Hello Animalparty,

Please help reduce the New Page backlog

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

• Improve the tools: Vote here.
• Reduce your review load: Vote here

---

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .

Yeah, I missed that. I will make sure that I amend the errors made in the Tirathaba articles to species instead of genus. Also, mentioning described instead of discovered and using spaces in between sentences. Should I use spaces in between citations which come after fullstop and next sentence too? Also, your specification about my error is too appreciated.Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Adityavagarwal: In general there should be no space between a full stop and an inline citation, and no space between citations. There should be a space between the last citation and the first word of the next sentence, and always between a period and the following sentence. Cheers! --Animalparty! (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Amended the errors so can you look at them?Adityavagarwal (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hola, ya puse las referencias correspondientes para el articulo de Malaimagen. Agradeceria sacarlo de la lista de articulos candidatos para su eliminacion. Saludos--Sarmiento 007 (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Animalparty, I wanted to make you aware that I responded to your comments on my Commons Talk Page. Thanks for the feedback and I look forward to getting this all straightened out!

Hamsamdwich (talk)

Hi, just a note on your review of Jeff Smith (poet). I know sometimes editors do not like tagging articles for speedy deletion (although this one is a clear WP:CSD#A7) but when you PROD an unsourced WP:BLP please use WP:BLPPROD rather than just WP:PROD. All biographies of living people require a citation to a reliable source and BLPPRODs can only be removed by adding a reliable source rather than simply on a whim like PRODs can. Thanks and have a good weekend! Jbh^Talk 15:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The article Ocepeia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ocepeia for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi AnimalParty,

Thanks for your warning. I didn't expect you reacted that fast. :-)

I'm sending you a goose family to join your party.:-) Please offer me some advice or some time and then I can improve the article.

Thanks so much!

1001Bookworm (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@1001Bookworm: Subjects on Wikipedia generally need to meet notability guidelines, (such as the general notability guideline, and see also the answer to life, the universe, and everything), to ensure that there already exists sufficient coverage of subjects in reliable, independent sources, such that Wikipedia, as a tertiary source, can remain reliable and verifiable, and free from original research and novel synthesis of ideas. Otherwise, self-promotion, advertising, subjects of fleeting or trivial interest, and non-encyclopedic material could easily run rampant. The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian American Literature Fans will likely continue for at least 7 days, giving users a chance to weigh in. In order to demonstrate Asian American Literature Fans warrants a devoted article, evidence of notability must be provided. I note that very few if any of the reference actually mention "Asian American Literature Fans", so how could one even verify the true nature of the subject (despite claims to being a scholarly electronic journal, it appears to be a no more than a LiveJournal community, no matter who contributes). Mere existence does not equal notability. The most in-depth coverage of I have found is two brief tangential sentences in a review of Stephen Hong Sohn's book, stating only the website "has chronicled with remarkable capaciousness the explosion of Asian American literary production since 2007. It is an incredibly useful site, and one that I have used extensively." Should Sohn ever warrant his own article (see WP:BIO and WP:SCHOLAR for relevant notability guidelines), Asian American Literature Fans might plausibly redirect and be briefly mentioned. --Animalparty! ([[User talk::{{reply|#top|talk]]) 02:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@AnimalParty: Thanks so much for taking the time to point out the weakness of my entry. I'll try to improve it. I viewed some entries such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existere

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_Review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonora_Review and thought AALF should have an opportunity of being on Wikipedia. Your prompt response and professionalism are great appreciated. I'm sorry if I'm not in the right way to 'talk" to you by using "edit."

1001Bookworm (talk) 13:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@AnimalParty: I've added some references and made some changes. Thanks!

1001Bookworm (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, do you think this article has now been sufficiently revised and enough references have been added? Would it be appropriate to now remove the template message? --Thecrumble (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, AnimalParty ... I acknowledge to you as I have acknowledged in my proposed edits to Mary Lou's Wikipedia entry that I *do* have a conflict of interest. In each case I have offered only updates (she's moved on from Facebook, which fact became public and I cited this) and corrections (she was born in 1965 not 1964) and always made it clear who I am and what my relationship to MLJ is. If someone wants to clean up / edit / rewrite the profile, I'm happy with that. I just wanted it to be accurate: I was prompted to do this when an exec said the reason they'd not invited her to a meeting was that Wikipedia still showed her at Facebook, nearly 6 months after her departure was announced.

Meanwhile, grumble grumble ... when a while back I offered edits on GrooveShark's profile, where I had no conflict of interest (just an irrational liking for one of the musicians aggrieved by Grooveshark), my edits were repeatedly overwritten by someone who DID have a COI and my edits never stood and I gave up. end grumble — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnconorryan (talk • contribs) 19:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Animalparty, Can you help me in erase this titel, please? It redirects on Richter Gedeon Co. now, and I want to use this titel on Gedeon Richter (pharmacist). Thanks a lot. Voxfax (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Animalparty! Kawakatsu is still living, indeed! I didn't notice that mistake. Thank you! Piter Keo 11:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piterkeo (talk • contribs)

Quick question - around 1/2 of the SM&A page citations are on internal developments in the company (eg acqusitions) and were not published elsewhere, so the press releases were linked.. should I just delete the citations completely if they cause an issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katecohee (talk • contribs) 01:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Katecohee: If material can only be found in press releases or other affiliated sources, then it is questionable whether it is worth including at all (otherwise articles tend to resemble official websites, which is promotional). Neutral point of view requires distinguishing between due and undue weight, and not overemphasizing details that have had proportionally little coverage. Material written or authorized by the subject/organization may be used in some cases (see WP:SELFSOURCE), but articles should not be based predominantly on news releases (which are promotional) or affiliated sources. Note that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Self-published material may also be construed as a primary source, and per policy (WP:PSTS), articles should be primarily based on secondary sources. Additional guidelines can be found at Non-independent sources. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 01:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Animalparty,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 804 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

No birth/death dates that I can find anywhere. Wonder if Calgary Transit can help. - Westendgirl (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The article Walt McDougall you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Walt McDougall for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Margalob -- Margalob (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The article Walt McDougall you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Walt McDougall for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Margalob -- Margalob (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Animalparty,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 804 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Since you reviewed one of my pages a while back and seem to know a lot about taxonomy and such, I came to you. The question is whether I can convert ampersands to "and" and add in Oxford commas to species authorities. Thanks! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 16:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@RileyBugz: I don't know if there's a standardized form for taxon authorities in regards to ampersands and commas. There are some standard differences between zoological and botanical nomenclature (e.g. plant authorities omit year and include subsequent authors), as described in Author citation (zoology) and Author citation (botany). I've seen both ampersands and "and" used on external sources (see [3] and [4] for Agononida), and anecdotally I believe ampersands are more common on Wikipedia (I'd recommend their use for conciseness anyway). I can't find previous discussion on relevant project talk pages, but the examples on Template:Taxobox include ampersands as well. This might be a good question to bring up at Template talk:Taxobox or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@RileyBugz: For further info on ampersands: the Manual of style states "Ampersands may be used with consistency and discretion where space is extremely limited (e.g. tables and infoboxes)". --Animalparty! (talk) 02:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The matter is in hand, have only just started, will continue today or to-morrow.Osborne 14:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not believe Sarah Vandella should be deleted. All information is properly referenced and there is no disrespectful content. I also believe this topic is suitable for a Wikipedia page and do not think it should be deleted

User talk:Cclark0 14:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Cclark0: Please post rationale on the Article Talk page by clicking the blue button "Contest this speedy deletion". See also previous Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Vandella. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Animalparty, my name is Randy Singer (RA Singer) and I am the lead author on the manuscript revising Paracanthocobitis (http://www.asihcopeiaonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1643/CI-13-128). Would you kindly please stop removing the photographs I post to the Paracanthocobitis pages. I am posting my own images from the publication thata re valid identifications for the species. Also someone keeps posting a photo of a specimen to P. botia that is not P. botia. Thank you. - Randy (melanostomias)

melanostomias (talk)

@Melanostomias: Hi Randy, it looks like many of your photos were deleted from Commons after this deletion review. Although I left a notice on your Commons Talk page, please note the deletion requests (and deletions) were performed by other users and admins. When uploading content previously published under a non-free license, it is necessary to send proof of permission to OTRS, e.g. to prevent anonymous users from falsely claiming to be copyright holder. See Commons:OTRS for instructions, and you may request an undeletion of any incorrectly deleted files. I don't believe I have removed any Paracanthocobitis images from Wikipedia articles, and as to P. botia, the only image I see on Commons is File:Acanthocobitis botia.jpg. If this image is incorrectly identified, you can edit the description and request the file be moved to a new name. Or I can do it if you prefer. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Animalparty, Thanks for the explanation at the the Ethical Journalism article's talk page. I've posted a followup comment there. Just to let you know. Scott P. (talk) 02:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I notice you're editing that right now, so you might be interested to note what I said at User_talk:Rjhassell#"historical_revisions".

Hope you understand, and all is well. Cheers, 86.20.193.222 (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

On 11 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Luther D. Bradley, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Luther Bradley was considered the most prominent political cartoonist opposing America's involvement in World War I? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Luther D. Bradley. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Luther D. Bradley), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for caring when no one else does. Antonioatrylia (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Animalparty, and thank you so much for your edits in the Calabrian black squirrel article. Regarding other squirrels, those living in the USA, I noticed that in the Black Hills article the term "red squirrels" links to red squirrel... but I think this is a mistake. I guess that the Wikipedian who whrote this line was talking about the American red squirrel (simply because "red squirrel" is a synonym of "Eurasian red squirrel", not found in the Americas). Please, tell me if, in your opinion, we should fix that link in Black Hills, changing the link from [[red squirrel]]s to [[American red squirrel]]s. Kintaro (talk) 11:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charles Lederer (cartoonist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chicago Herald. 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) 09:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. You added a notice to the Translations of The Devil's Dictionary page stating, "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond its mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted."

I wish to point out that this page provides information on translations of The Devil's Dictionary, which certainly qualifies as a notable book. It appears to be common on Wikipedia pages which list translations of notable literary works to not include citations of secondary sources to establish notability. Instead, the pages covering translations establish their notability by relying on the notability of the underlying literary works.

For examples, please review:

Calvin and Hobbes in translation

English translations of Homer

List of English Bible translations

List of English translations of De rerum natura

List of Book of Mormon translations

List of Kalevala translations

List of Latin translations of modern literature

List of translations of the Quran

Translations of Alice in Wonderland

List of translations of works by William Shakespeare

Translations of The Hobbit

Translations of Through the Looking-Glass

If my memory is correct, none of these pages--some of which are years old--make any attempt to establish notability. They inherit the notability of the literary works they cover.

What can we do to have the "establish notability" notice removed?

Thank you. Vince Emery 22:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinceemery (talk • contribs)

@Vinceemery: See WP:NOTESAL and WP:SALAT for notability guidelines on stand-alone lists. It is my view that not everything factually verifiable requires a list (or even inclusion), and the lists above range from trivia (Calvin and Hobbes translations) to topics that have collectively been the subject of substantial coverage (e.g. English Bible translations). However, given the number of foreign-language editions of The Devil's Dictionary, and its purported influence on or inspiration of subsequent works, the list arguably has scholarly value, and it's plausible the group or set of translations is independently notable. Thus, I would not object to your removing the notability template. I would caution however that the introduction to this list appears heavy with peacock terms ("well known", "entertaining and important", "insightful"). Care should be taken to avoid the appearance of editorializing or original research, here and in the parent article. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I am very disappointed that you chose to delete my article on Processing Issues Earing Issues. It is a very serious disease and I myself was diagnosed as a kid. I am not sure how to bring back this article and hope that if you still have the ability to bring it back you should do so, because if not I will report you for what you did. I am truly disappointed with your rash decision and hope you fix the situation. Thanks, Dr Smith

@DrSmith472: If I was hasty, and this disease does exist, please provide one source that discusses it. I could not find any mention online of anything by the name "Processing Issues Earing Issues". Is something misspelled? Is this two conditions combined? "Earing" does not even seem to be a word. If this is not a made up condition, and you provide proof, I will gladly apologize and help build the article. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 00:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Animalparty, thanks for your great work as always. I just noticed in Oliver Bell Bunce the source used is The University of Literature. This is a fine source. My question is does it make sense to use the Google Books version? The reason is, in my experience anyway, Google Books is not a reliable host. Links stop working or get put behind a paywall. This is because Google Books is a commercial book seller, and if one of their partners brings the book back into print (even though PD) they will take the free version down. And for inexplicable reasons books just stop working. Meanwhile we have quality non-profit hosts at Internet Archive[5] and HathiTrust [6] whose mission is to keep links alive forever, operating like libraries/archives rather than commercial sellers. -- GreenC 15:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Green Cardamom: It does makes sense to link to the non-profit and more stable versions on Internet Archive or HathiTrust. I believe I used the Google version because it was the first source I found, and/or I used the Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books for convenience. I've changed the url to an Internet Archive version. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Great! I used to use Google Books in creating articles and years later found many links broken and had to find new sources. So far no trouble with IA and Hathi. -- GreenC 18:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Stanley B. Mulaik. Since you had some involvement with the Stanley B. Mulaik redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Narky Blert (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Animalparty,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 804 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Animalparty, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
• Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

• Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
• The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
  • User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
  • User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:

• Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Articles that you have been involved in editing—Monotypic taxon and Monospecificity—have been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Nessie (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I added some more info and references that I found, I don't know how to make them cute like you did and that's all I could find, if you know of any more sources let me know and I'll read em and expand.Wikigirl97 (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm JJMC89. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Straight from the Heart (David Houston and Tammy Wynette album), and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

— JJMC89 (T·C) 02:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Animalparty! Thanks for the welcome note and tips - much appreciated.

Thanks also for the guidance on the page about Dr Miller. I accidentally jumped the gun with that one - is there any way to change the page to "draft" status?

Blench (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Blench: I have moved the page to draft status: Draft:Josef M. Miller. Feel free to work on it there, and when you think it is ready to "go live", consider submitting it to Articles for Creation, such that it can undergo a preliminary review for tone, sources, etc. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Animalparty!: Perfect, thank you. Blench (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Good morning,

I have changed the tone of the document. With the change in tone do you find it to be an acceptable article that the information does not need to be condensed and in the Delaware Water Gap Article?

Thanks, Gabby TTayl7205 (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The size and Behavior appeared as result of use the article Artholycosa as base.

Thanks for your comments re Michele McLaughlin, I have deleted the irrelevant references you mentioned Alfshire (talk) 22:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Note that not all named taxa necessitate their own article: newly proposed clades might better be discussed in Echimyidae, to provide better context and avoid re-inventing the wheel each time a new classification is proposed. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Dear Animalparty,

Many thanks for your comment.

I agree with you that one comprehensive article would be better than several isolated ones. However, if a page about a given taxon would always contain all the information about their subtaxa, such a page might also become quite heavy. Alternatively, when classifications are changing because they reflect and incorporate (new) phylogenetic information, — or "re-invent the wheel" as you mentioned —, it might be reasonable to define the corresponding taxonomic terms, and to open a dedicated page for them. Of course, this is not incompatible with having context provided in the page about the parental taxa. It might also facilitate navigation and internal linking in the taxoboxes. Yours sincerely, Manudouz (talk) 13:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Animaparty,

You left a notification about some missing sources on my new article, Charles I. Murray. Maybe you can help in this matter, because I cooperate with United States Marine Corps History Division for long time. They always send me Biographies of the Marine Corps officers and generals and I will create an articles. But how should put these PDF file with Biography (which I really have on my e-mail or PC) for source in the article?

Thanks for your advice AntonyZ (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments on my article on The Lathrop Sisters! I could easily add footnotes to the Dwight Lathrop reference, fleshing out the New York Times article, for instance these:

https://books.google.com/books?id=ZiFDAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA84&lpg=PA84&dq=dwight+lathrop+sing+sing&source=bl&ots=lgR9hODw7s&sig=HmTlEu_mrlih6NExptT2jqP334A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiMyKOOt7zWAhXIRSYKHfZ_CqwQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=dwight%20lathrop%20sing%20sing&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=ovXIlXPw8scC&pg=PA789&dq=clara+henry+lathrop+northampton&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwigru71t7zWAhUD5SYKHa-vCXoQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=clara%20henry%20lathrop%20northampton&f=false

Let me know if that would work, all best! Evekahn (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Eve Kahn

@Evekahn: Both of those sources, in this context, are primary sources, that require independent research or thought to make a claim. I'm not saying anything you've written is wrong, but a name listed in a college catalog that shares a name in a genealogy and a New York Times article requires a bit of extra connecting-of-the-dots that some editors may construe as original research. The important thing on Wikipedia is to avoid building narratives out of primary sources. No original research and improper synthesis of published material forbids inferring or assuming things that are aren't explicitly stated. Statements like "The sisters spent early years in Savannah, where Henry ran a store and briefly manufactured Confederate uniforms" should have sources that verify a: they lived in Savannah, and b: qualify how long is "briefly" (it would be original research to look at say, two isolated news items mentioning Henry manufacturing uniforms, and inferring that that is briefly). In short, as much as possible, nothing should be written on Wikipedia that is not already accepted knowledge. Your own judgements, analysis, or opinions based on sources (be they primary or secondary) should be omitted. Over-reliance on primary sources runs the risk (however low) of building "Frankenstein articles". Lastly, if you yourself have already published on the Lathrop Sisters in reliable outlets (magazines, newspapers, journals, etc. ) it is acceptable to cite that material (see WP:SELFCITE). Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, MANY thanks for the close read! I'm sorry to have been confusing in my previous reply to your comments. What I meant was that those are just TWO examples of the sources I used for the article, and I have secondary backups for the details in the article. I just didn't want to swamp my article with dozens of repetitive footnotes--and I don't want to swamp your talk page with all this backup material, either. Perhaps it's best to continue this dialogue via email? See evekahn.com for contact info. All bestEvekahn (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Eve Kahn

Hello Animalparty. My reason for creating Chris Niosi's page on Wikipedia is not a conflict of interest nor was it made to promote anything.

Chris has many contributions in the internet, he made legitimate crowdfunds for several projects, was involved with many video games and productions and he joined SAG/AFTRA and is a recurring actor on one of Cartoon Network's hottest shows. An actor and artist with such a grand resume and great talent should be recognized. Especially since he's an artist and voice actor in his own right. I actually had to ask him before hand and he was nice enough to grant me permission. I don't know him personally or professionally, but just like Arin Hanson, he should get at least some recognition.

@PeanutButterMarshmallowTime: OK, but your article appears to be written from a fan's point of view, not a neutral one. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:PRIMARY: articles should primarily be based on secondary, reliable sources. Self-published or user-generated sources like blogs, YouTube videos, social media, etc. are largely unacceptable (WP:USERG). Almost all the sources in Chris Niosi appear to be Niosi's videos and personal websites, or other blogs and social media. Review also WP:Notability: if you think Niosi deserves to be recognized, you need to find solid evidence that others do as well. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not merely a place to increase publicity. You seem to know a good deal about Niosi's work: perhaps you can find non-trivial coverage in reputable online magazines or news sources (i.e. those with a reputation for accurately covering issues, and/or with some level of editorial oversight), and shift the balance of sourcing, such that the article isn't showcasing Niosi, but rather granting him fair coverage proportional to the coverage received in reliable, independent sources. Lastly, review the Biography of living persons policy, especially Avoid self-published sources. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, The AFD discussion for that article seemed to result in 3 keep, 2 merge and 1 delete. How does that constitute consensus? Uhooep (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Uhooep: AFDs are not simple vote tallying. Two of the keep arguments are in essence WP:ITEXISTS (or WP:ITSINTHENEWS) and an assertion it will become notable (WP:CRYSTAL). I wasn't involved in the AFD, but perhaps the closing admin felt that the merge arguments were more persuasive, i.e. more in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines at the time. The AfD closed in January of this year. If you can find more recent evidence of distinct notability (i.e. beyond passing mentions in news or run-of-the-mill announcements), these should be used to assert that the website has enduring importance beyond mere existence, and if so I will not be opposed to a split. Trivial fluff, even if verifiable, should be trimmed: in 5 or 10 years, will it matter how many Twitter followers an account had on a certain day? --Animalparty! (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#deletion_of_legitimate_article_that_uses_correct_WP:MANUAL_and_WP:COMPANY_and_accusation_that_i_work_for_said_company.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Carey James Balboa (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your involvement with this new article. This new editor has been pretty amazing. They attended an edit-a-thon today in Pittsburgh and took off running. I helped them learn the ropes but they caught on so fast...I've not seen anyone do this before. Their experience with another supportive editor like yourself will undoubtedly be an important factor in their continuation of adding content. Thank you so much.

Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 22:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	You helped a new editor today have a most excellent experience. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 22:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Animalparty, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

• Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
• Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Animalparty, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

• On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
• Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, just a word to be sure to check for copyright violations in NPP, especially where it looks like it's a press blurb as you pointed out in The Smoke at Dawn on the author's page. That article was almost word-for-word copied from https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18373208-the-smoke-at-dawn# , and probably any other site that used the publisher's text. Crow^Caw 19:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Crow: Thanks for the reminder: I suspected something similar was up, but missed the copyright vio. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Animalparty, thanks for the hint regarding the correct method of citing a reference. I have edited the article and hope that it is now OK. Summerdrought (talk) 06:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Summerdrought: Much better, thanks! --Animalparty! (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Animalparty. Your advice re the tone of the article (Arthur Montagu Gwynn) has been followed, and several sections of apparently non-neutral and "obituary style" vocabulary have been removed. If you have time please check to make sure the article is now clean. Thanks. Acrestreet (talk) 12:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

ARCHAELOGY is the study of human past through material remains of the past, It is the science that studies human culture through recovery, documentation, analysis and interpretation of material remains and environmental data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwinuka Agastino (talk • contribs) 06:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Animalparty, I created these pages to develope articles. Now these pages have been moved to article space. Now these pages are just redirects to main space articles. These are not needed anymore. All of these pages were created by me. I request you to delete these pages.

• User:Don'twasteTime/sandbox
• User:Don'twasteTime/Coastline of Somalia
• User:U/Sawan
• User:Don'twasteTime/Coast of Makran

Is it okay to create pages in userspace of other user? Thank you very very much for welcoming to wikipedia! Don'twasteTime (talk) 13:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Don'twasteTime: You should not create articles on other user's pages, and your sandbox (User:Don'twasteTime/sandbox) should be kept for easy access: you can simply edit your sandbox, delete the existing redirect, and continue to use it for testing or article generation. For your other user sub-pages, you can request deletion yourself, using the Twinkle gadget in Preferences. When Twinkle is installed, select "CSD" from the "TW" menu near the search bar, and select options such as "G7: Author requests deletion, or author blanked", or "U1: User request". I hope this helps, and thanks for your contributions. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

You dont' have to worry about the article, I only left it bare because sleep and school interrupted until now, now that I have gone through my watchlist I can get back to working on it.★Trekker (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@*Treker: Thanks, glad to hear it. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I just sent you an email by mistake! It was intended for someone else. Please disregard the email! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

True Confessions (novel)

Ok I added a source, just I don't know if it's a good one.... could you check it when you have time? Thanks you. Charlie Foxtrot66 (talk) 08:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, good point. If we don't find more about Elizabeth Bishop (Burns) we'll move it as a section to Robert Burns and probably the article about her mother Elizabeth Paton as well.(Stillbusy (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC))p

Would you like to collaborate for improvement? Best, —usernamekiran(talk) 23:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran:: Grace Banker is already a Good Article, and I don't have much interest in World War I biographies, but if you want to improve it, by all means go ahead. You might find more experienced, resourceful, and interested editors at the World War I task force or WikiProject Women's History. All the best, --Animalparty! (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I just wanted to make sure you saw I suggested new hooks for Did you know nominations/Colpocephalum; can you let me know if any of those work? Thanks. Umimmak (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain why the notability list?

@Espngeek: regarding Submissions for Best Animated Short Academy Award: Per WP:LISTN, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". So this historian Jerry Beck posted a list, and others have posted it on blogspot. Have these films (aside from those actually nominated) received additional discussion as a set, per WP:GNG? While this is certainly not the worst case of Listcruft, I'm not sure if every list on the internet needs to be transcribed to Wikipedia. I do see that Beck has added discussion of the "forgotten" films themselves, and so this list may have some value, but I'd urge caution about solely using the existence of lists- even by experts- as a source: Stephen King may have a list of his favorite top 50 horror novels for instance, but incorporating that into Wikipedia would be trivial at best. If you can find additional coverage of this list as a set, that would help further establish notability. The list also could be made more useful to readers by sorting by year. Lastly, please remember to initiate contact on a user's Talk page (i.e., here), not the User page itself. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for the feedback on links and citations. I'll be sure to change that for later articles.

Harrytudor (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

On 20 November 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Inez Whipple Wilder, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that biologist Inez Whipple Wilder made contributions to the study of fingerprints and salamanders? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Inez Whipple Wilder. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Inez Whipple Wilder), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Mary T. S. Schäffer Warren, WomenArtistUpdates!

Thank you for your comments regarding my start on a Mary T. S. Schäffer Warren page.

She is an incredibly interesting woman. She was trekking around the Canadian Rockies enjoying the wilderness. Then she came home to give slide lectures and write about her experience. THEN she married her mountain guide (twenty years her junior). And Billy is interesting as well. He has a mountain named after him and he also built Mary a beautiful house in Branff.

I am unclear about copyright vs. free. If something is in an archive does the archive own the copyright etc.? Would her lovely picture of a red monkey-flower be in public domain? There are dozens of slides in the Whyte Museum of the Canadian Rockies, Archives and Library that might go into the Commons.

All this is beyond my editing abilities. If you know anyone who might be interested in taking up this subject, it would be great to get them involved.

Again, thanks for your comments. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@WomenArtistUpdates: It depends on when the material was first published, in what country, and/or the lifetime of the creator. Items hosted on Archive.org (Internet Archive) are not necessarily in the Public Domain: some sources remain under copyright of publishers, others are under Creative Commons Non-Commercial licenses, which can't be uploaded to Commons (see Commons:Licensing). In most countries, media whose creator died more than 70 years ago, (and all media originally published in the United States prior to 1923), is generally in Public Domain and can be used on Commons. So, since Alpine flora of the Canadian Rocky Mountains was published in New York in 1907, all of the content is the public domain in the U.S.- see Commons:Category:Alpine flora of the Canadian Rocky Mountains (1907). The book would also be acceptable if it had been published most elsewhere, as both Schäffer and writer Stewardson Brown died more than 70 years ago. See also copyright rules for Canada and additional technicalities for the U.S.. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll replace this with a picture given to me personally by the owner (and subject); that should be the most concise way to resolve this issue. (I appreciate Wikipedia's extra-cautious approach to fair use law.) Everyday847 (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For being one of the top 100 reviewers of the past year. Thank you for your service! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 22:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

In the future, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template {{PD-notice}} after your citation. I have done so for the above article. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Animalparty. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Ogakratos (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

You deleted one person from this cat. Saying that persons should not be in it.

But you left all the other persons who are in it. See Category:Child sexual abuse in the United States. As well as all the persons who are in its subcats. --2604:2000:E016:A700:7005:86B0:3674:62FD (talk) 07:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@2604:2000:E016:A700:7005:86B0:3674:62FD: Yes, I am but one person, and there are only so many hours in a day to spend cleaning up messes that others have created. Feel free to join in the cleanup! --Animalparty! (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a much older image from a Bergman film going back to 1953 which appears to be free of any copyright issues which I would like to use in the Accolades article which you edited this morning. Could you look at Summer with Monika, to see if that poster is public domain and usable since it is over fifty years old. Cheers. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@ManKnowsInfinity: the poster File:Sommaren-med-Monika (Summer with monika).jpg appears to be non-free as well (see non-free use rationale on description, and complete information at Wikipedia:Non-free content). You might find a suitable free image at Commons:Category:Ingmar Bergman. I'd say it's better to use a photograph of Bergman as the lead image, rather than arbitrarily highlight a film. You might also follow the format of similar lists such as List of awards and nominations received by Alejandro González Iñárritu or List of awards and nominations received by Meryl Streep. A list should be as narrowly focused as possible, and not significantly duplicate elements from the biography. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand, there are two pages.Xx236 (talk) 07:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Xx236: (and pinging @Gherkinmad:) Assuming Ludwig Weber (1899–1974) the singer is the primary topic, the link to Ludwig Weber (pastor) can be indicated as a hatnote on Ludwig Weber, as is currently the case, rendering this third disambiguation page superfluous (we should send readers on as few wild goose chases as possible). The same logic applies to Pete Weber. However, if it can be assumed that none of the Ludwig Webers or Peter Webers is a primary topic, then the names themselves should be the disambiguation pages (without the "(disambiguation)"), per WP:TWODABS. See e.g. John Quested. Thus, Pete Weber might be moved to Pete Weber (bowler), and Pete Weber converted into a two-name disambiguation page (perhaps adding Peter Weber as well). --Animalparty! (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Xx236:, @Animalparty: OK, all clear for that. Gherkinmad (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

★Trekker (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. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas, hope you're having a relaxing time during this period and that next year will be even better for us all here.★Trekker (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

	Holiday barnstar
	You deserve a holiday barnstar, but this barn flake was as close as I could come. And best holiday wishes to you. Thank you for making Wikipedia a better place. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Your source says that the publishing house is national socialist. That's not true, the source is not reliable and I am removing it. --2001:8003:54DA:E600:A57D:D965:D465:F1C0 (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I have recently edited the GE Power article and, based on what I've removed, I also removed the Press release template, as the article is now mostly just a list of names and dates. As you were the editor who added it, I was hoping you could, at your earliest convenience, have a look at the article as it now stands, and let me know if this is ok with you. If not, please feel free to re-add the template as you see fit, or let me know, and I'll put it back. Thank you for your time. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 02:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Animalparty, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

• The total number of reviews completed for the month.
• The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Our brief conversation on another user's talk page drew my attention to the reptilian -ology articles you pointed out. The study of snakes article was particularly surprising in that it would be very easy to expand these articles beyond a dictionary definition. Many people specialize in studying snakes outside the study of reptilian biology in order to aid venom studies and antidotes. Sourcing on this I assume would be ridiculously easy to find. I just got done watching a long series of documentaries on people who specialize in studying snakes under the government funded and well established institutions in India and Australia. If we were to expand the reptile studies article to incorporate this it would surely constitute a reason to fork.

Anyway thank you for bringing the articles to my attention. I will at the least go through and leave some comments and review them if they haven't been through the process already. Many thanks. Edaham (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to expanding content within an article, but think a single comprehensive article is often better than a half dozen isolated stubs. It's important that we don't needlessly overlap content, and defer when necessary. Every article on an animal or group of animals is a result of an "-ology" of some sort, and in the case of Ophiology, we already have Snake, Snake venom, Sexual selection in scaled reptiles, Evolution of snake venom, Snakebite, Snake worship, Snake charming, and others. In my experience, too many articles on occupations read like how-to manuals (e.g. what classes do foo-ologists take? what schools offer foo-ology programs? how much does a foo-ologist make? and other non-encyclopedic drivel.) Well sourced scholarly discussion on the field or history of a science would be welcome. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Snakebite, snake venom and evolution of SV could definitely merge - although I'm sure there's editors who would cringe at the suggestion :) I think Ophiology deserves an article, per wp:due, because a lot of people specifically do that and have created lasting impact plus a wealth of sources because of having done it. The same is unlikely true of, say, Anatoideologists as humans don't get bitten by ducks and die (usually). What you've pointed out there are some landmines which should definitely be avoided when writing such an article, but they are not necessarily reasons not to write the article. Edaham (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Would be interested in your thoughts on this discussion and its relevance to the book. Cheers! --Zefr (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello how are you? I found your banner in Data Gravity article, I understand that I should look for more references to accredit its notability, I have found more, tell me if it seems right:

• http://www.businessinsider.com/exclusive-paula-longs-new-42-million-startup-is-an-ingenius-way-to-do-big-data-2013-3
• http://fortune.com/2016/03/14/datagravity-pulls-plug-hardware/
• https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/07/05/datagravity_acquisition/
• https://www.xconomy.com/boston/2017/07/11/datagravity-snapped-up-by-hytrust-after-struggles-and-layoffs/
• http://www.telegram.com/news/20170724/wall-amp-main-datagravity-falls-to-earth
• https://finance.yahoo.com/news/computer-security-firm-scored-more-234031071.html

The company is important, has won important awards, and I just took care that the references are from reliable sources, CRN, Fortune ... The company was mentioned as a section within the article of its founder, and I thought it was better to separate it. It is possible for you to rename the article?, in fact it is DataGravity Inc. I await your answer, thanks--BelleBenny (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Animalparty, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

• Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

• The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Animalparty, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
• Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

• If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

• A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

• ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
• The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect "Cage on the Sea". Since you had some involvement with the "Cage on the Sea" redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.  — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey, thank you for your review. I am a new contributor and understand about not contributing original research. The letters I referred to were all set out in full in the Currey book that I used for the article and so I had included both a reference to the letter and to the book. Should I just refer to the book? I have amended so that there is one reference on the grounds of letter dated x as quoted in Currey. Or should I be amending the text itself to say something like 'In a letter dated x, Maria writes...' and then just refer to the Currey book? Any advice will be greatly received. many thanks JuliaBracewell (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello how are you? I just deleted the sentence that had been pending in the Data Gravity article, since I did not find the video in which I had seen the missing data long ago - I mean Paula Long was inspired by Jim Gray for the name of his company - . I also removed any phrase that could be subjective and changed some references that reproduced rumors, and not the specific fact of the sale of the company. Can you tell me if any more edition is needed to remove the banner?
One more question, I do not know if you saw on the Talk Page, I asked you if you could add the ending "Inc" to the name of the page, so it does not get confused with the concept, I do not know if you think it's necessary. Thank you!--BelleBenny (talk) 06:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Animalparty and BelleBenny. I made some minor edits to the Data Gravity page. When I saw the initial tag on advertisement/neutrality, I did some research. One thing I noticed was HyTrust mentions in their press release they "acquired the assets of DataGravity" (https://www.hytrust.com/hytrust-and-datagravity/). This seemed a contentious point in a few of the cited sources, but since it was stated specifically by HyTrust, I felt it in the best interest of neutrality to use that phrase. I noticed BelleBenny undid that in the recent edits. There are also quotes in a couple sources from the individual who sold the assets to HyTrust, in some cases with very specific correspondence, which also seemed in the best interest of neutrality. I added these two aspects of the research back to the page. LMK if any feedback? Thank you both! -- arodwins (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@BelleBenny: and @Arodwins: This discussion really should take place at Talk:DataGravity. I don't know anything about the company, nor the finer points of business acquisitions. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I will move the discussion there. Arodwins (talk) 11:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the page Interpretative Journalism Animalparty :)

As you have mentioned I will try to avoid taking lines and phrases directly from the sources cited. I had hope someone would contribute to this page and help expand it considering the importance of this form of journalism. But since no one has I will try making the changes myself. Thank you.

DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 06:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I have made changes to the page trying to add more citations and minimize directly picking up from sources. You had commented on my talk page - "Please make sure to avoid plagiarism or clase paraphrasing of sources. The first paragraph appears to have some very similar phrases and sentences to the sources cited." Is the page better or should it be cleaned up even more?

DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Ignoring ⚠

hello im Raymondskie99 sorry i just got messages from you and now im avoiding uploading image that is copyrighted thx for everything

		Thank You
		Thank you for reviewing articles during the 2018 NPP New Year Backlog Drive. Always more to do, but thanks for participating. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey @Animalparty:, we must have crossed paths in editing. I was typing in the talk page to provide links to the consensus building. In retrospect, I probably should have written on the talk page first...

Here is the page where we reached consensus! What do you think would be good next steps? Let me know what you think! Ongmianli (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ongmianli: Thanks for the link, although I don't see much of a consensus there, more of a discussion in progress. While it's understandable you may be wanting to provide help to people looking, please note that Wikipedia is en encyclopedia, not a crisis management hotline or vehicle for promoting worthy causes. Please see guidelines at WP:External links. External links should be well-chosen and directly relevant to the subject. For instance, we don't include links to suicide hotlines on every article about a celebrity who committed suicide, nor include links to voter registration drives on articles on political subjects, even if they might possibly be useful to a small subject of viewers. Automatic tagging of articles with the same link, no matter how well-intentioned, also risks running afoul of spam and advocacy guidelines. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Animalparty: Ah - this is truly helpful to know - thank you for taking out the time to respond! I will only add those external links on pages that are of more relevance. I'll go ahead to revert my own edits on the other school-related shootings pages on Wikipedia.

On a related note, I have also created a bunch of learning resources on Wikiversity on ways to cope with a shooting! It can be found v:SCCAP/Resources for Dealing with a School Shooting. It was just started today, so some parts are still pretty raw. What do you think about adding a Wikiversity widget link to Wikipedia pages that are directly relevant? Any thoughts welcome! Definitely want people to find those resources, but also do not want to run afoul of Wikipedia policies! Ongmianli (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Re this, I don't disagree as to "where the cop was from". Don't we need the street address to back up the infobox coords? Maybe we can use a footnote for needlessly intricate details? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Mandruss: Sigh, if we must include the arrest address for the coordinates (we mustn't), it could simply be referenced in the infobox or a footnote. The level of detail is approaching absurd levels of pedantry. I wonder what flavor soda he purchased at the Subway restaurant in the Walmart before going to McDonald's, and if he ordered a Big Mac. --Animalparty! (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Re your sigh, I wish Wikipedia policy were so clear as to where to draw this line. It's not as clear and obvious as many editors claim. Nobody has proposed flavor of soda or Big Mac, so that's a hyperbolic remark. I shall apply my own judgment. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Please do not use <strike>; this old element has been deprecated in the HTML specifications for over a decade, and its use here triggers the "lint" filters many of us WP:GNOMEs are using to clean up Wikipedia in preparation for migrating fully to HTML5. The correct elements to use are <s> for typographic strike-though (what you probably want most of the time, e.g. for indicating a redacted comment), while <del> is semantic markup that indicates deletion/rejection and is used with <ins> (inserted/replacement content) in marking up revision of material such as a draft proposal.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for removing DOB and personal information. Re-reading the policy, now I understand we can't use primary sources, even if it does not include personal info such as voter registration. Thanks! CookieMonster755✉ 21:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@CookieMonster755:, No problem. I'll reiterate that WP:BLP and an emphasis on privacy and discretion is especially important in cases like this, where survivors are literally reporting death threats. Thus we should not include personal information, even if verifiable, that could be used to further attack living people. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my accidental duplication. Lyttle-Wight (talk) 04:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Animalparty, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
• We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

• We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

• ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
• Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I see that you visited this article between 20.11 and 20.16 on 2 April, enough for a cursory skim-through but hardly enough to absorb its content.

You added two tags: one (that there was no lead section) I accept was an oversight, the second (that it relied too much on primary sources) mystified me. Having looked at the definitions of Primary, Secondary and Tertiary sources, it appears to me that most of the sources are secondary or tertiary, and I'm not aware of any that are "...accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history..." or "Historical documents such as diaries..." as the definition of primary sources states.

Rather, they are "...an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." which would make the bulk of the quoted articles secondary sources, or books that are general summaries, which are tertiary sources.

Given the brevity of your visit, the most charitable assumption I can make is that you might have considered Vail's own works were primary sources, which any knowledge of them would have convinced you otherwise.

Would you now remove this misleading tag?

Sscoulsdon (talk) 07:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The guidelines for Maintenance Templates say they may be removed if clearly in error. It advises, but does not mandate, discussion with the person who tagged: I have brought the matter to your attention and you have not responded, so I will now proceed to remove the offending tag.

Might I suggest, firstly, that you should read the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources so you can properly identify a primary source and don't make similar egregious errors in future and, secondly, if you must review articles in areas well outside what appears to be you area of interest or expertise, you spend more than five minutes on erroneously disparaging something it has taken a contributor a reasonable amount of time to prepare?

Sscoulsdon (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

There is a difference between an article being a stub or a work in progress, and an article warranting immediate and absolute deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slade121 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits! Raider1918 (talk) 06:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing to this new article!

TeriEmbrey (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The nice thing about SIAs is that they don't have to match the dab format: you can add additional data that helps our readers to the list articles. For example, you can convert the list to a table with peak circulation, founding date, ending date, etc. Just in case you want to add more information to these SIAs. —hike395 (talk) 01:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hike395: Thanks. I'm much more familiar with the disambiguation format. There is some grey area I'm not quite sure of: if a disambiguation page has a considerable set index (list) embedded within it, should it be added as well, for instance should The Journal be added to Category:Lists of newspapers, even though it contains non-newspapers, or should disambiguation pages generally stay out of list categories, since disambiguation pages are technically not articles while lists are?

If a disambiguation page has more than one type of thing in it, it can't be a SIA (a list article). You have to split it out into a list article, e.g., List of newspapers named Globe and then put that new list article into Category:Lists of newspapers. —hike395 (talk) 01:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hike395: I see. Does that mean that disambiguation pages consisting entirely of a set (e.g. Daily Chronicle (disambiguation)) should be renamed? Also, since Category:Set indices on newspapers is already in Category:Lists of newspapers, isn't that a bit circular? Or should the categorization scheme be tweaked? --Animalparty! (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I have started to rename articles like Daily Chronicle (disambiguation) to List of newspapers named Daily Chronicle --- feel free to fix those! I didn't check the super-categories of Category:Set indices on newspapers --- you're right, to avoid overcategorization, those SIAs can't directly be in Category:Lists of newspapers. —hike395 (talk) 01:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi AnimalParty, Thanks for the comments about the Commons and copyright. @Victuallers: has been suggesting that files PD can be uploaded to the Commons as well.

I realize that getting images of paintings by women up on the Commons would be great for raising awareness of their work. That said, I just can't seem to get it right, for example the File:Jean Burns portrait painted by Aileen Dent.jpg portrait. When I click on the details on Flickr, I drill down to Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0). But evidently that does not mean it is free to use.

I want to make Wikipedia better, but I am completely flummoxed by the wikicommons limitations.

I greatly appreciate any upgrades you and Victuallers can make to articles. You both seem so well versed in copyright, whereas I am completely intimidated. That, and the fact that I don't want to misappropriate anyone's intellectual property.

I do love that portrait of Jean Burns in her aviator helmet :( WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@WomenArtistUpdates: I agree that copyright issues can be tricky, especially on Commons. I'll take a look at the images you've uploaded and see what can be transferred. The issue with the portrait of Jean Burns is that regardless of what a Flickr user claims, the painting itself is still under copyright (see Licence laundering and additional info at Commons). In the same vein, if I bring a camcorder into a movie theater, I don't own the copyright to the film I record (technically, a photograph of a painting is a derivative work). It's possible that the painting could be retained per WP:NFCI, if it was itself the subject of significant commentary and/or its own article (see for instance the use of non-free work in Harry Jackson (artist) or Drowning Girl), in which case it would need to be scaled down and/or cropped per (for instance if certain details of brush strokes are significant, and cannot be described by mere words alone, a crop is preferable to the full image to respect copyrights). Cheers! --Animalparty! (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Animalparty: Thanks for the update. I can't make a legitimate case for the portrait. I'll make a link out to it. Reading through the links you included I gleaned that a good rule of thumb is that if the author of the 2D work has been dead for 100 years it is a candidate for the Commons, regardless of the country of origin Did I read that right? WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@WomenArtistUpdates: Hmm, maybe but I think it's a bit more complicated than that, especially since public domain on Commons must be in public domain in the U.S. as well as country of origin. Material in the public domain explains some of it. U.S. copyright expiration is largely based on when (and where) an image was first published, while most other countries use the death year of the artist. Thus, an illustration first published in an American magazine in 1922 by an artist who lived until 1960 would be in the public domain in the U.S., and thus OK for Commons. But if an image by the same artist was first published in a British magazine in 1922, the image would be in copyright in the UK until 2030 (70 years post-author-death (70 PMA)), even though considered Public Domain in the U.S., and thus not OK for Commons. I find that books, photographs, and other printed works are usually easier to ascertain publication info for than paintings: mere creation of a painting, or displaying in a public gallery, may not satisfy legal definition of publication (i.e. distributing copies of a work). This image, published in Canada in 1920 by an artist who died over 70 years ago, is Public Domain in the US and any country using 70 PMA. If you have questions on certain images (or sources), Village pump/Copyright is the place to go. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your review of the newly created page! : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amphibians_of_Denmark It is indeed correct that Turtles are not Amphibians, and such the should be moved to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amphibians_and_reptiles_of_Denmark as soon as possible.

I will do this as soon as my account has been autoconfirmed, unless it has been done before. (generally one must have an account for four days and made at least ten article edits with it, before being able to move pages.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pouldk (talk • contribs) 20:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)