User talk:Tom Morris/Archive 16#Move close on Mrs Brown

Thanks for your messages.

The specific pages that have been copied are [https://www.uschina.org/member.html] and [https://www.uschina.org/benefits.html] - with the generic home page address, I was trying to indicate (though not very well!) that the copyright violation spanned more than one page. Having looked at the home page again, I can appreciate that this may well have caused some confusion. SuperMarioMan 09:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

:No problem. Glad we resolved it. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I'm going to take your close at Talk:Sarah_Jane_Brown#Requested_move_5_.28March_2013.29 to Deletion revew. As said in the debate, the problem with this is that she is never referred to by this name, so it is no help to readers. Your close ignored that the Women's History project, but no others, had been canvassed, and a number of the editors participating came from there. The arguments in your close do not address the issues raised by either side in the debate, and previous ones, & don't really stand up. Let's look at them: "There seems broad consensus that the current naming is problematic - yes, and all other names suggested, including the one you have closed in favour of. Avoiding a carnival of contentious and time-consuming arguments about the most appropriate parenthetical description for disambiguated person articles is a desirable end goal here - really, why? It is some years too late for that anyway. The carnival has been held several times, & no doubt will be again, and moving the article to 'Sarah Jane Brown' means we can quickly cut short a debate about whether "wife of X"/"husband of X" type phrasing poses issues - even if at the cost of leaving editors who know who they are looking for with no recognizable option in a search box. The debate had happened, & it the job of a closer to assess it rather than just by-pass it." I'm raising it with you first, as per procedure. Johnbod (talk) 11:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

:I'm happy to vacate my closing and have another admin close it. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

::I've unclosed the RM discussion. Another admin can take a shot at closing it and if appropriate move it back. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

:::Thanks Tom - see you at the GLAM-WIKI. Johnbod (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

|}

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tom,

I'm not very familiar with the Wiki platform, so I'm hoping you can help me. I see that you are the moderator who ultimately deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shift4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shift4

I am considering a deletion review with purpose 4, "to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page (called a history-only undeletion)", but am unsure how to proceed with the rewrite as the Shift4 page is now clearly marked with bright red "please do not modify" tags. I have identified a number of independent national publications which can be used as proof of WP:CorpDepth, as well as a number of wiki articles that will prove Shift4 is not an orphan.

The DeletionReview page asks me to "discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review", so that's what I'm doing. Can I have you review a potential rewrite and then undelete the page (or do a history-only undeletion), or would the I have to request a deletion review and then submit the rewrite to another moderator?

Your expert advice is appreciated.

Cheers,

Casper n (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

:Deletion review is only used when you feel the admin erred in their closure of the deletion discussion. Broadly this is for objections on procedural grounds: if you think, for instance, that I gave the wrong weighting to opinions offered in a deletion discussion. I don't think I have erred in this case, but obviously you are welcome to disagree. I think if it were to go to deletion review, the deletion review would probably close in my favour as there has been no procedural failing in my closing of the discussion.

:That said, if you have sources to write an article that doesn't fail WP:CORPDEPTH, then the matter of deletion review is irrelevant. As I said, deletion review is for challenging a deletion where the admin hasn't followed procedure. That's not necessary here.

:If you can provide a simple listing here of the sources and show that WP:CORPDEPTH is met, I'd be happy to undelete the article, and either "userfy" it so you can work on it until it is satisfactory to move into article mainspace, or we could move it straight into mainspace if it is ready.

:I'm a bit busy over the next few days, but if the sources are there, I'm happy to reverse the decision or delegate the task of doing so to another admin. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Wikidata-logo-en.svg

Based on feedback for last week’s call for comments we will continue this newsletter. However more community help will be needed. From now on they’ll be drafted at d:Wikidata:Status updates/Next and your help is very welcome.

Hello Tom Morris,

Kevjonesin here.

Thanks for seeding the Society of Decorative Painters page. My Mom's quite active with a local chapter so I was inspired to check for a Wikipedia entry. Was nice to find that someone had already done the groundwork.

In looking at your User Page I noticed that you expressed an interest in LGBT Outreach. I've got something that might be of interest to you. To either work on yourself or to refer to someone who'd enjoy the task. Hoshen (Israeli LGBT Organization) is in need of some TLC. At present it's a stub/skeleton mostly salvaged from a deleted predecessor which a few months ago had usurped the pre-existing heavily linked 'name redirect' page Hoshen which connected to Priestly breastplate (a page which had actually originated at Hoshen before a move). A bit of 'googling' left me feeling that the Israeli LGBT organization is noteworthy enough to deserve a page and there are still a few links to Hoshen on LGBT oriented pages which could use a place to land.

I've only recently branched out from basic proofreading edits and have already stretched my learning curve a good bit in my recent work on Hoshen, Priestly breastplate, and Hoshen (Israeli LGBT Organization). And, frankly, would like to move on to other projects but it would please me to know that someone skilled was aware of (and hopefully taking an interest in) the Hoshen (Israeli LGBT Organization) page.

Thanks again for your work on the SDP page,

--Kevjonesin (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the [http://www.grouplens.org/node/494 consent information sheet].

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low File:Gnome-stock person.svg to High File:Icon of three people in different shades of grey.svg.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tom. Do anon usernames that start with 2600, 2601 or 2602 and look something like this: Special:Contributions/2601:0:8E00:35:D49A:571F:A979:CC62 mean anything special in Wikipedia-land? I've seen a lot more of these sorts of addresses, that are clearly not ordinary anon/IP addresses recently, some from vandals. Do you know what they are about? Or where I can read more about it? Cheers. 03:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

:Those are IP addresses—IPv6 addresses! They can be blocked like IPv4 addresses: see Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses. If IPv6 addresses are vandalising articles, please report them as usual to WP:AIV (etc.) —Tom Morris (talk) 07:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

::Oh, thanks very much. I was vaguely aware of the existence of IPv6, but had never seen nor really groked that IPv6 addresses would necessarily look different; which makes a lot of sense. I am now so educated. Thanks! N2e (talk) 11:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Wikidata-logo-en.svg

We have developed an exciting new version of SuggestBot’s interface with some cool features! Volunteer to be one of the first users to try it and help us make it better by answering a short survey! If you’re interested in participating, leave us a message on SuggestBot’s user talk page. Regards from Nettrom, SuggestBot’s caretaker. 18:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Tom Morris. I have a few questions regarding the following AfDs:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Buffalo State Bengals football team
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 St. Norbert Green Knights football team
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Buffalo State Bengals football team
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 St. Norbert Green Knights football team
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Buffalo State Bengals football team
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 St. Norbert Green Knights football team
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 St. Norbert Green Knights football team

This set of AfDs is unusual because each article was submitted individually, but is part of a larger en masse deletion discussion. What are your thoughts on the proceedings? I see that you have decided to relist each AfD listing. Are you waiting for consensus to be reached on all articles, even though they were submitted individually?

I support the decision to relist the debates to allow for additional discussion, but unfortunately I will be on vacation starting on Friday, April 26. Do you think this will be an issue, especially if there have been concerns that I didn't handle the AfDs properly? Edge3 (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

:They should ideally have been done as a group. I've relisted them because there's not enough consensus on the notability for me to make a decision whether to delete them. I may pop in and add a note on each one saying "if you have an opinion on the deletion of this article, perhaps you should also go have a look at these AfDs". Do feel free to do that if you wish. {{Smiley}} —Tom Morris (talk) 12:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

::Thanks for the quick response. Have you seen the initial nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Buffalo State Bengals football team? That was closed as "no consensus", and the closing admin recommended that I resubmit articles individually. I'll add a note to each AfD, as you suggested. Best, Edge3 (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

25px Hello! Your submission of David Malet Armstrong at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Binksternet (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've recently made some major style and formatting changes to this page, and since it doesn't have an active talk page or enough watchers to register, I'm poking the last few editors to get feedback (Yes, the page has been essentially idle for about two years). Unfortunately, copywriting and editing isn't my thing, I don't have access to the sources, and the article as it stands is largely uncited. Yes, I realize that most of the 'career' text is obviously sourced, but it is unclear which source was used for it.

From the edit history, it appears the only change you made was to add the citation, without changing the article text. Since the list of references was incorrectly formatted when I came along, it was unclear if your intent was to add.... "Aaron, Richard Ithamar". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/65645 ....as an actual cite for statements made in the article, or as a source of additional information. (Yes, this is not the exact cite you added, I converted it to use Template:Cite ODNB)

I know this was a long time ago, but if you could please clarify it would be nice. Revent (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Wikidata-logo-en.svg

:File:Lorry_UK_Sign.png

:File:FLOWER GARDEN UK Brown sign.png

:File:BEACH UK Brown sign.png

:File:HEAVY_HORSE_UK_Sign.png

:File:STEAM_RAILWAY_UK_Sign.png

:File:Tourist Watermill Brown.png

:File:Tourist House Brown.png

:File:Roundabout_Ahead.png

:File:Stately_Home_Brown_Sign.png

These could be re-instated with a change back to the original user license for the specfic image,

and Open Government License for the artwork from which they are derived. Thanks :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

:{{Done}} Please ping me when they've been moved over to Commons and I'll delete them locally again. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comments on the Moltmann entry. I remember that, at the time, there was plenty of biographical material but nothing to indicate why he is such an important modern theologian. It was true of Pannenberg too, and it's a bit of a problem with theologians generally. Wish I had more time to devote to it, really. Sjwells53 (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

:Twentieth century theology has always been something I've found interesting, from the Death of God folks to post-Holocaust theology. I'm not a believer, but I'm interested in just working out how that realm of thought operates. So, yes, thanks for the work you've done on it already. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the [http://www.grouplens.org/node/494 consent information sheet].

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low File:Gnome-stock person.svg to High File:Icon of three people in different shades of grey.svg.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Wikidata-logo-en.svg

FYI - thanks for keeping an eye out, I did want to let you know that was me as an IP editing my talk page to show off the new Echo system to someone. After I had a few beers. ;) SarahStierch (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

:I'm glad you are drunk-editing as an IP rather than with your admin account. (I once got drunk and went for a merry little fly in my spaceship in EVE Online. Which always ends badly.) {{Smiley}} —Tom Morris (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

|}

File:Wikidata-logo-en.svg

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the [http://www.grouplens.org/node/494 consent information sheet].

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low File:Gnome-stock person.svg to High File:Icon of three people in different shades of grey.svg.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, this is just a reminder that you have previously signed up for the Lua on Wikimedia event taking place at Wikimedia UK office this Sunday. The plan is to start at 10am, but I should be around to let you in from 9-ish. See you then! -- Katie Chan (WMUK) (talk) 10:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The Wikimedia UK AGM will be held in June, and nominations for the UK Wikimedian of the Year are currently open. If there is someone who you feel has made an important contribution to the UK Wikimedia movement in the last year please go ahead and nominate them here by 09:00 (BST) on Monday 20th May at the latest. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Wikidata-logo-en.svg