User talk:GRuban/Archive 6

A year ago ...
finding images
	... you were recipient; no. 1730 of Precious,; a prize of QAI!

This is an archive of past discussions with User:GRuban, for the period 2018.
Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

→

re: ANI

For what it's worth, (Personal attack removed). Anyway, don't let it get you down. Gimubrc (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! For how I (try to) look at things, see the quote at the top of my user page; when I saw it on Keilana's, I knew that I needed to grab it. --GRuban (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Quick note

Believe Sagaciousphil is female, and also that the edit summary you're referring to as "hurt feelings" was in fact in reference to the Butler discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, will try to remember the gender, though I must plead that the user page didn't say anything... (actually there is no user page! it's a redirect!). I recognized the reference, but her remember, remember rather strong edit comment did seem to indicate to me that she was made upset by my edit. Which wasn't my intention, I was trying to fix a typo. So I apologized. Hopefully it's better now. --GRuban (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

You might find {{gender}} useful. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Impressed...

...with your work. You can stalk my TP all you want - I welcome content creators!! I even created a humorous template for users who have no reservations asking polite questions: ^{( Buttinsky)} - feel free to use it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended content

I find your comment here, Atsme, thoroughly inappropriate and almost mocking towards those who've felt worried by GRuban's behaviour here tonight. Why don't you keep your mouth shut? We've even had Iridescent issue a warning as he too has found it disturbing. Cassianto^Talk 21:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cassianto: that's a pretty clear personal attack, and uncalled for. Please cut it out. She didn't write anything bad about you, just wanted to make me feel better. Hopefully making me feel better isn't a crime? --GRuban (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Cassianto, feel free to use the ^{( Buttinsky)} template, too. Didn't intend to exclude anyone. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd rather stick pins in my eyes than read your "humorous" essay. Just cut out the mocking comments. Cassianto^Talk 22:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's another fun template to use -

Self-whale... for when a trout just isn't enough - and it won't affect your vision. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Cassianto, she's allowed to write about her humorous essay on my talk page. --GRuban (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I wrote a humorous essay? ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, you know I like and appreciate you, but please don't make fun of others like this--one of the ones you're making fun of is a longtime friend and fellow-editor, and someone who has suffered from stalkers. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about, Drmies. I hope jumping to conclusions isn't the only exercise you get.^[FBDB] I thought I was on GRuban's TP, not Cassianto's. I came here uninvited, yes - but I've crossed paths with GRuban at AfD, and we also share a common interest at Commons. I was impressed by his photoshopped images above - but I didn't get a chance to tell him what I came here to say because Cassianto rudely interrupted. I didn't come here to make fun of anyone, especially not Cassianto. My mind was on Photoshop (PS) which is in my area of interest. Occasionally my (talk page stalker) ask me to do stuff in PS for them. I came here to network. The ^{( Buttinsky)} template was something I originally made for MelanieN a while back. She used that word on my TP, I thought it was cute, so I made her a template. I customarily offer templates I create to other users so the template police don't delete them - they give new meaning to the term "use it or lose it". When Cassianto said he'd rather stick pins his eyes than read my "humorous essay" I was really confused so I offered up another fun template - one I occasionally use when I make a mistake or don't catch on to something. I'm happy you two are friends, but quite frankly, Cassianto has never been polite to me, so I try to steer clear of him. My initial interaction with him was on his TP back in 2015 where I commented ONCE in defense of myself because an editor (who is now a WP friend & project team member) had the wrong impression of me. Cassianto responsed in his usual rude manner, and I never went back to his TP. End of story as far as I'm concerned. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

So it was all one big coincidence? Oh I see...please excuse me, there seems to be a lot of that going on around here; firstly, GRuban "coincidentally" visited the same articles as Sagaciousphil, who he'd previously locked horns with on Carolina Nairne; and then there was SchroCat who'd commented on GRuben's knee-jerk RfC on the Nairne article only to have Ruben follow him to Josephine Butler where GRuben conducted this quite stunning fix, just to make sure people knew he was sniffing about. From there, he decided to rock up at the Cary Grant pantomime where he knew he'd garner a response by !voting in an RfC that had only just been flagged for archiving by a bot (which had been edit warred against by another editor who was desperate to keep the drama on that page going). When challenged about this, he then admitted to stalking whilst all the while, passive aggressively conducting himself on my talk page. And then, coincidence of coincidences, you then turn up here declaring that he could "stalk my TP all you want". I'm flattered you have my talk page on your watchlist, but I really wish you would just say so and not patronise everyone here by telling us it was a fluke. Cassianto^Talk 08:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Cassianto, quite frankly I can't begin to imagine what makes you think I care about your interactions with other editors when quite the opposite is true. Your TP has never been on my watchlist and I intend to keep it that way. As difficult as it may be for you to accept, you clearly screwed-up by assuming I previously knew about your interactions with GRuban, and it appears that your behavior now reflects the very behavior for which you accused me. Jiminy Cricket, move along. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

·Cassianto, please stop using the term stalking. You and Drmies both should be well aware of the history of using this term. And there ARE legitimate reasons to look at a user's edit history... It doesn't seem to me that GRuban veered so heavily into the obviously "wrong" category, even if you believe so. Looking through an editor's history for common ground seems like a pretty good use of it. And just use some damn common sense: GRuban isn't new here. If he was truly doing this to aggravate, and knew it, do you really think he would brag about it on your talk page? Perception is important, but it's not reality and his intent should be taken into consideration before you start a multi-page effort to smear him. It doesn't matter one red cent that someone else might have been a target elsewhere on this site, and has a justified weariness for other editors showing up, even though I'm pretty sure this one is just using a different method to collaborate. That person is entitled to see boogeymen in the shadows for a while, but you actually do them (and other people who have suffered harassment... which I know unfortunately includes both you and Drmies) a disservice when you amplify their prejudicial fear without cause. You and Drmies both effectively lump GRuban, a long time content creator who is incredibly valuable to this site, into the same boat as people who DO hound people to cause distress. Just, ugh.

And before you hog off and just chalk my voice up to some faceless IP that can take the place of any villain you have concocted in your mind, let me tell you why I'm here: as an IP, my "watch list" is essentially my Wikipedia bookmarks folder (Drmies, you're in there too, but (and I mean this congenially) you're just not as interesting to me). At some point, I bookmarked Atsme's contribution history instead of her TP, even though that's where I spend most of my time. I don't always agree with Atsme (in fact, the last time we disagreed she lumped me in with a clear vandal that she was unfortunately on the receiving end of), but we have collaborated well before and she (and others) generally share my interests and Atsme in particular keeps interesting company. Is that hounding? Perhaps in an overly broad sense of the word, but certainly not in any sense that matters for a project that is conducted completely in the open, with logs/lists/analyzers a plenty. 172.56.20.26 (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Folks, I'm going to collapse this part; it's not connected with Atsme's original post, which I appreciate, thanks. I could just delete all this, this being my talk page, but I'm going to just collapse it instead. I've been trying to contribute to the work of people I've had arguments with, in the hopes of proving that even though we disagree in some places, we could still work together other places. In a few places this worked - like the Softlavender post above, #Can you do your photo magic?, that Atsme refers to below: that started when Softlavender and I disagreed on one article, and got to where she was asking me to help on another. In other cases, it obviously didn't, it annoyed people more. So, since my goal was not to annoy them, I'm going to not do that. Hopefully that will suffice. If I start annoying people again, please tell me, but not until then, please?

Meanwhile, there is no reason to excoriate Atsme here, she has done nothing wrong ... and it is certainly wrong to do it on my talk page. So again, closed, and no more on this topic on my talk page. Unless I happen to annoy people again, in which case open a different talk page section, please. --GRuban (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

GRuban, before I forget the original reason I came here - re: the images above - are the photos on the left the original photos and the ones on the right the ones you photoshopped? If so, what tool did you use to change the shape of the mouth? Oh, and per my earlier invitation, you're welcome to stalk my user pages - I have a small gallery of images on my user page. If you see anything on my TP that you can contribute to - I occasionally get requests to expand, review, copyedit, etc. - feel free to be a ^{( Buttinsky)} or

Just curious..., and comment away. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The section #Can you do your photo magic?: They're not photoshopped as such, they're cropped screenshots from the two Creative Commons Attribution licensed YouTube videos that User:Softlavender links to at the top of that section. I have some experience finding and uploading free licensed images for articles, so she asked for my help making one for an article she was working on. So the change in the shape of the mouth is just due to being taken from different points in the YouTube videos. The specific tool I used was mostly just maximizing the video, screenshotting at various times, then cropping the result. Takes trial and repetition, mostly. (Pausing isn't as effective, since then you get the video title at the top and video progress bar at the bottom, which occludes a sometimes useful part of the image. There is also a site called http://youtubescreenshot.com/ which makes a version without the title, and crops the progress bar space off the bottom, which I use sometimes, but usually don't, so not to lose that bottom part.) I know a bit about cropping images, but am not so good on more complex "Photoshop" work: lighting, coloring, other corrections. If you want some specific help, I'll be glad to try! I appreciate your posts. --GRuban (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I thought perhaps image manipulation was involved, such as the use of the "spot healing brush", "liquify" filter and a bit of the "content-aware move tool". *lol* While I'm here, can I tax your experience to find an image (will probably be a painting or sketch) that would work in an infobox for The Evil Eye (1830 short fiction) by Mary Shelley, or possibly one for The Keepsake, the literary annual where the story was pubished in 1830? Thanks in advance...^{Atsme📞📧} 17:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure! 1830 publication is old enough to be public domain, so any images from The Keepsake will do. I see some beautiful scanned The Keepsakes on Google Books and the Internet Archive, including the one for 1830... several copies actually... And there's an image for Zella on p 164 which seems to be from that story. I tweaked some spelling in The Evil Eye (1830 short fiction), give me a bit to get the image there. --GRuban (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Done --GRuban (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

My response is the title of this section in larger, bolder text x 2. Many thanks!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

By the way ... I read the story itself, and, umm ... the plot description in our article was off in a number of rather important points. I see you didn't write our article, just approved it for creation. I have to say, the person who wrote the plot description didn't read the story very carefully. I think I corrected it, but if you aren't sure I did it right, you can read the story in the Google Books links above and see. I also linked some of the wonderful words in the story: Klepht, Sciote, Moreot, Caloyer. That's more of a judgment call, if you prefer you can rephrase them to or explain them with our more modern equivalents. I kept them as the old style, because they are mostly ethnicities, and crucial to the story. --GRuban (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm still gloating over being able to collaborate with yet another talented editor who doesn't mind rolling up their sleeves to reach deep into the pickle barrel. Knock yourself out with that article, GRuban. Whenever I come across a short fiction, it reminds me of a very talented IP editor I encountered last year. Our first encounter was at Merlin (poem) - it was a little bumpy at first but I soon realized the editor was overflowing with talent and energy, so rather than focus on hardline technicalities, I gave him/her plenty of breathing room to work on the article and, by golly, it paid off. (I'm not making any comparisons or anything, just reminiscing). I can't remember what followed after that - I think he/she is serving "time-out" - but I would not hesitate to collaborate with and/or mentor editors like him/her, as long as the behavioral issues are manageable, of course. I think in most cases, kindness and understanding goes a long way. Oh, and I have no clue why I even brought it up. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Devdas Gandhi image

The image you have re-uploaded is *not* of Devdas Gandhi, but of another associate of Gandhi's from his South Africa days. A simple comparison of the image to every other publicly available image of Devdas Gandhi would make instantly clear that this is a different person. The fact that this image was on Wikipedia for some time does not make it him. You won't find a single published source that carries this as an image of Devdas Gandhi. I am sure you made the edit in good faith, but it needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caversham (talk • contribs) 16:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Caversham: I did a few image searches, and there are different photos, but it's not clear which are most authoritative. I'll remove the image from the article, but could you give some links to photos that you are sure are of Devdas Gandhi, so we can get this one established as not Devdas Gandhi? Otherwise someone else will be returning it eventually. --GRuban (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Evil Eye (1830 short fiction), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Albanian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

✅ fixed. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Your thoughts....

Hi, GRuban - I just reviewed Madre della Consolazione and Nikolaos Tzafouris, and it appears to me that maybe the icon article should be merged into the artist's biography. From what I understand after reviewing the artwork, there are several different depictions of the icon that are attributed to him so I'm not sure if we should include the available/most notable depictions as portrayed in various museum catalogues or merge the artwork into the biography. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but I don't know as much about Greek Renaissance painters as it may at first glance seem. :-P --GRuban (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

So I looked around a bit, and will give a wishy-washy answer. That's a variant of painting; generally considered to be inferior to either oil or tempera, but possibly related to watercolor. It looks as if there isn't much commentary on the Madre della Consolazione icon as such on the web, just descriptions of the painting, and of the Madre herself. So you certainly could merge it into the article on the painter; neither is very long. That said, though, I personally wouldn't do it unless one of the articles were in danger of deletion, mainly because it would be work that might have to be undone in case someone finds more words on the icon. I wouldn't be surprised if detailed commentary on the Renaissance painting might not be popularly accessible to web search engines, but might well exist in ink-on-paper form; especially if it might be in Greek or Latin. So: wishy washy answer. OK? --GRuban (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

that was for the Prosperina Brown comment, quite right! In ictu oculi (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

FYI, the nom has proposed instead Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) In ictu oculi (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Sarah Brown

I withdrew the RM and am thinking of going with a multi-choice version, using a table. What do you think?

Draft: Talk:Sarah Jane Brown/table

Thanks! --В²C ☎ 23:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

re: czabita

Hello GRubin,

Thank you for your review of my recent work. I admit I was a little unsure of the exact wikipedia guidelines for submission hence my use of direct quotes.

I have made some changes to the work. Please let me know if all is ok and if so, i can continue expanding the page.

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czabita (talk • contribs) 15:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Ian Purkayastha Sure, but you haven't written much yet for me to check, keep going. Think back to your high school writing classes that must have taught something about using sources as references but without committing plagiarism, this is very similar. An exercise mine taught me was to read each source with a stack of index cards handy, take notes of just the facts from each, one fact per card, then reorder the cards in a logical sequence and write from that. So The New Yorker says ""Forgoing college, the teen-ager moved to a cramped walkup apartment in Weehawken, New Jersey, enduring crushing loneliness, spoiled inventory, and traffic jams on I-95—all for the sake of haunting the back doors of New York’s finest restaurants, hoping to win chefs over with the ultimate product." and The Wall Street Journal says "Instantly captivated, the 15-year-old pooled his savings to buy a kilo of summer black tubers from France, reasoning that whatever he didn’t cook himself he could sell to professional chefs at high-end restaurants." Your index cards could say "As teen, skipped college, moved to apartment in Weehawken, NJ, to personally market product: New Yorker" and "At 15, bought 1kg French black truffles, part to cook and part to sell: WSJ." The article could say something like: "At 15 years old, Purkayastha bought his first kilogram of French black truffles, meaning to cook some, and sell some to restaurant chefs. [ref: Wall Street Journal, John Smith, ...] By 18 (correct? double check reference!), instead of going to college, he had moved to an apartment in Weehawken, New Jersey, to market truffles to restauranteurs full time. [ref: The New Yorker, Jane Doe, ...]" --GRuban (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

About Draft:Paul Trynka

Hi GRuban and thank you for your message.
It appears that we may have to agree to disagree about this biography of a living and rather music journalist.
From memory I started the draft in 2016 when I noticed "http://www.trynka.net/archive/Hermione.html" in the David Bowie article and wondered who this "trynka" person might be.
I appreciate your opinions and those of of @Sulfurboy: but do I think this article should be in article space.
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

If I may … I've just add some suggestions on Shirt58's talk page. It's not a question of whether Trynka merits an article (as far as I'm concerned, he most definitely does), but the article has to demonstrate that he merits one with sufficient details of his notability. Which I imagine, Shirt58, is what influenced GRuban and Sulfurboy in their decisions. JG66 (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

JG66 is correct. I'm not evaluating Trynka's notability from my own detailed research, just the draft as currently written. It has one line about him, and two lines about books; that's just not an adequate biography of a living person. Since, as I wrote, the books are reviewed in big name sources, that clearly hints that he might be notable, but doesn't prove it. Good luck. --GRuban (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@JG66 and GRuban: I guess it's time for me to either put up or shut up. (Not "WP:PUTUPORSHUTUP". I was unaware of that essay until now.) Thanks for your message, JG66.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

FYI

I started to make a couple of points, in response to something your wrote, at the AFD for Rahaf Zina, that I realized were very likely not of interest to anyone else there.

So, in the interests of brevity there, I cut them, and will place them here, where I hope you will find them worth reading.

One interpretation of your comment would be that, if I went and drafted an adequate list article that summarized the role of Daesh's leaders, and linked to those of them that currently have articles, include Al-Bagdadi, the emir, and Abdul Mohsin Al-Dhufairi, Zina's first husband, you'd consider changing your mind.

But I don't think that is what you actually meant.

If it were I'd point to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Since there are lots of notable topics, that don't currently have articles, which anyone could start, at any time, the non-existence of List of Daesh office-holders implies nothing about the notability of Rahaf Zina or Hussein Al-Dhufairi. Geo Swan (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

If you were able to make a well sourced list of articles for most of Daesh's leadership that would be good evidence that the rest of Daesh's leadership would be notable. It would be something like List of popes where some of the early list we know almost nothing about, but since most of the list are undisputably notable, we have articles for the rest as well, to complete the set. My statement was that I don't think you can; these are people who work hard at not having much reliable information about themselves made easily and widely available, since it's literally a matter of life and death to them.

It wouldn't, as you properly guess, though, be enough for Rahaf Zina since she's just a spouse. Hey, I can keep going with my simile! Consider Married popes - we don't have articles for their spouses. Or more practically, we have articles for all the United States House of Representatives, but not for their spouses. Heck, we don't even have an article for the wife of Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the House, either the second or third most powerful politician in the most powerful country, certainly in the top 10. WP:NOTINHERITED is not always observed, but it usually is. The combination of the two makes this a clear delete. --GRuban (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time for a meaningful, thoughtful reply.

Well sourced additional coverage of Daesh leadership would be a good thing, without regard to whether it was in a list, adequate standalone articles, or in article on events. I'll give it some thought.

Rifa is a spouse, not someone to whom POLITICIAN confers any notability, and I didn't mean to imply it did. But I don't agree she is an instance of a BLP1E.

We may not yet have an article about Mrs Paul Ryan. That may be a lapse. Do you think she merits one? Geo Swan (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

My second point...

You write: "...do not qualify for WP:POLITICIAN ... Being an actual politician demands extensive publicity and press coverage to get people to vote for you."

Yeah, I think this is wrong, on several levels.

We have GNG, the General Notability Guide, and we have supplementary special purpose notability guidelines, like ACADEMIC, and POLITICIAN, which I would argue are best seen as superceding GNG. We want to cover all members of the US Congress, even any past or present members of Congress who would not measure up to the inclusion standards of GNG, because we want to be comprehensive. If there were holes, if we deleted articles about 19th Century US Senators, or 19th Century Medal of Honor or Victoria Cross winners, because they couldn't measure up to GNG, it would raise continual question of whether the wikipedia was being censored. It would also make us inferior to paper encyclopedias, which would cover these individuals, in their attempts to be comprehensive.
We almost always link to the subsection on officeholders as POLITICIAN, but it would be more accurate to refer to it as OFFICEHOLDER. A US President makes over 3,000 political appointments, starting with his or her Cabinet, but including ambassadors, heads of agencies, like the Army, the FDA, EPA, and so on. They too should be considered as POLITICIANs. Some states don't have elections, or don't choose its Cabinet members through free elections. The former Soviet Union is an example.
The wikipedia's rules are already too complicated. We could distinguish between POLITICIANs who hold office in countries with more than a million citizens, and officeholders in countries with less than a million citizens. But we don't. Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney and Sark, have Elizabeth Windsor as their Head of State, but in her capacity as Duchess of Normandy. They each have their own little Parliaments. Each of the representative to Sark's National Assembly represents about three dozen individuals. But they would still qualify for POLITICIAN notability.

If POLITICIAN supercedes GNG, which I think is the best interpretation, we may keep articles on officeholders which would not measure up to GNG. If our supplementary special purpose notabiity guidelines don't supercede GNG, there isn't any point to having them.

You wrote: "Being a leader of a terrorist group demands extensive secrecy to get your much more powerful enemies not to drop bombs on you. That's what makes it pretty hard to write articles about leaders of terrorist groups..."

When a leader of a group some describe as terrorist, nevertheless is an officeholder of a state, I would argue that they measure up to POLITICIAN. I've started almost 3,000 articles. Some topics were a lot easier to cover than others. Surely our goal is not to merely have articles on topics that were easy to cover? Surely our goal is to have article on the topics that measure up to our inclusion standards, without regard to whether they were difficult or easy to cover?

In late September and early October 2005 Zoe weighed in at the first five AFD related to Guantanamo. She said something like we shouldn't have ANY coverage of topics related to Guantanamo, because the topics were "inherently biased", and the articles could only serve, solely, as a place for "America-bashing".

I was very new to the wikipedia, and I really gave her comments a lot of thought. I decided that topics themselves had no bias. Only the way we covered them could be biased. I decided that there were no topics that could not be covered from a neutral point of view, if those working on the topic put in enough effort.

We were a lot more relaxed about references and referencing, in 2005. Since then I would modify my conclusion, every topic can be covered from a neutral point of view, with enough work -- provided there are sufficient good references.

So, not covering topics, where there are references, because it is too much work? If that is what you meant, could you please think about that one?

The notability of Rahaf Zina and Hussein Al-Dhufairi would have to be established through GNG. I never meant to imply otherwise. I added some more explanation that I merely meant that Zina should not be given the courtesy privacy protection we extend to people who are relatively unknown or low-profile individual, that being the spouse of a POLITICIAN means one is not people who are relatively unknown or low-profile individual. Geo Swan (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, still disagree. On both points; first still not clear that a Daesh leader is what we call WP:POLITICIAN, though I can see that being debatable. But even if they are, being the spouse of such is absolutely not enough to inherently be a high profile individual. We absolutely do not want individual articles on all the 500 or spouses of US representatives and senators, cabinet members, not to mention those of other countries. --GRuban (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Kelly Robert Savage

Dear G Ruban,

Thank you for checking my draft article about my son Kelly Savgae. Believe me, I am indeed trying and hoping that lasting change can come from the response to his death. I will try to rewrite it as an article about the incident, once we have a clearer picture of how and whether the medieval Japanese psychiatric system is reformed. If you would like to contribute to helping to bring about that change, please sign the petition that we have on change.org. They won't let me put the link here, but you can find it by going to change.org and searching for "japanese psychiatric hospital"

In any case, I appreciate the time you've taken to review the article and to suggest a way forward.

Kind Regards,

Martha Savage Martha.Savage (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Brad Smith (American lawyer)

Hello! Your submission of Brad Smith (American lawyer) 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! RickyCourtney (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Richie Greene

Thank you for editing my draft for the article on Richie Greene! You had mentioned that I needed more than a mention on the New York Times to be able to prove notability for the composer. I am wondering if it would be helpful rather for me to delete this reference instead as it seems that there are a lot of other notable references on the article? For example: his discography and his relation to the "Needle Drop Co."?

Yesterdaysfire (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

No, not at all. We want more, not less, like the New York Times ref, just longer. I'm not sure which you mean by the discography reference, but the Needle Drop Co. reference, if you mean http://www.needledrop.co/artists/richie-greene/, is not a very good reference about the artist at all, since it's apparently a music publisher, which means it's not an independent source, it directly benefits financially from promoting the artist, so whatever it says needs to be taken with a serious grain of salt. The New York Times by contrast is independent, they don't really benefit whether Greene succeeds or fails. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources is the guideline for what you want; basically you want books, newspapers, magazine articles, from respectable publishers, that write about the subject in depth. For example the NPR list - NPR is a very respectable source, but the list entry doesn't really say much about the artist. --GRuban (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Interested in becoming a new page patroller?

User:Amorymeltzer/sandbox/npp/note ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I don't think I'll take you up on it. New Pages Patrol is important work, but not really my area of expertise. --GRuban (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Brad Smith (American lawyer) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Margaret Brennan Image

Thanks for your guidance. I had a producer take a picture this morning with his personal cell phone and had him send it to me with CC permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomcraver (talk • contribs) 19:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

But that wasn't my guidance! I wrote either

make an official CBS web page releasing an official image, or
email OTRS from an official CBS email address

Where did I advise you to do what you did? --GRuban (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Kathleen Hogan has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Kathleen Hogan. Thanks! KJP1 (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Kathleen Hogan

I'd suggest that working for Microsoft gives you a COI regarding a draft on its Chief People Officer. KJP1 (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@KJP1: Absolutely. That's why I made it a draft instead of putting it in the mainspace. I can add it to the draft talk page too, if you like. Or do you mean I should add it to my box on my user page? --GRuban (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd say it certainly needs a declaration on your user page, as with the others. My preference is also that it appears on the draft so that reviewers and, if accepted, readers know that they are dealing with a COI page. KJP1 (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Userpage: done. Draft: actually, that's the point of going through Wikipedia:Articles for Creation, that a non-COI editor approve it, so it doesn't bear the mark of shame once published. --GRuban (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

So subsequent readers don't know it was authored by an employee with a clear conflict. Nope, not seeing how that helps Wikipedia's reputation as a neutral encyclopedia. How it helps Microsoft, that I can see. KJP1 (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

That is the point of the articles for creation review process. If it weren't, I'd put the article directly into main space without review. Here, read Talk:Rebecca Moore (scientist) where I discussed this same issue with two administrators, one of whom was the main authors of WP:COI, and another who was a Wikipedian of the Year and a Wikipedia:Arbitrator. --GRuban (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree the concealment of conflict editing is an objective of Afc. But we're unlikely to agree. KJP1 (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Not concealment, resolution. The point of the review is that a non-conflicted editor reads it, and says, yup, the article is OK, or nope, this, and this and this need to be fixed first. I would be glad if you would do that, you seem an experienced editor. If you see any issues, I will be glad to try to resolve them. Thank you! --GRuban (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to drag this out. I understand Conflict editing is permitted, and I appreciate I came on to your Talkpage. But my personal view is that such editing runs counter to the values of a neutral encyclopedia written by disinterested volunteers. For that reason, I don't knowingly work on COI articles. KJP1 (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a shame; but thank you for your honesty. If you do find specific issues I can resolve I'd love to hear about them and try to resolve them, even if you don't feel you can sign off on the entire review. Thank you for your contributions. --GRuban (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Infobox caption

Re: this edit [1], it really isn't important to have that kind of content in the caption. The caption is too long for the infobox. That much information is fine for images in the body of the article, but infoboxes are to contain "snippets" of information about the article subject. The caption you reverted back in defeats that. Besides, you boldly added it, I reverted it, what you should have done is discuss it at the article talk page, not revert it back in. Please start a discussion about it on the article talk page per WP:BRD. Thanks,-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

For more on infobox captions, see the following.[2] What you've included in the caption goes against policy on what's appropriate and necessary for that particular photo. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure, let's discuss on the article talk page. --GRuban (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Your comment at User talk:Cassianto

Hey, Gruban. I noticed you posted a comment on Cassianto's unblock request on his page. But the request has been ported to WP:AE, so that's the best place for you to post. It's only because Cassianto himself is blocked that he continues to add comments on his page; everybody else should do it on AE, or it runs the risk of not being read. (And oh yes, I'm shy! Shrinking violet!) Bishonen | talk 15:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC).

Ah. Yes. Quite. Will do. Thanks. --GRuban (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Shrinking violet - heh. Yeah. I almost linked to the time you brought an ArbCom case against Jimbo Wales there, but couldn't immediately find it. There's a strong argument that your user page should be a "see also" in WP:REICHSTAG. --GRuban (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

21:02:12, 24 May 2018 review of submission by Wikifashionwriter

Wikifashionwriter (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Steven Silverstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello GRuban, I was on the community help page and they said, as I believe you have, that there needs to be an depth article written about this subject, who is a major fashion photographer before it can be published. I explained that the citations 1, 5 and 6 listed below are feature articles, two of which are cover stories. All three were in major, well-respected photo magazines. I'm a collector of memorabilia and have an extensive library of fashion publications and books. I also spent considerable time looking up information for this entry (my first). I understand that I can't upload anything (e.g. photos of the magazine pages) to help verify. I hope older Wikipedia subjects aren't kept from inclusion because articles about them aren't online via a Google search anymore. I believe they can be found in Worldcat or another library source though. I'm planning to write or edit 6 or 7 more Wikipedia entries, some of whom are also older. I'd like to make sure I provide the information that is needed for publishing. My understanding from the help page is that the citations are correctly formatted.

Citation #1 Nikon World magazine (includes the 6 page article about him. As cited, pages 22-27.)
Citation #5 PhotoArt (includes 8 page and cover about him with an interview. As cited, cover and pages 14-21)
Citation #6 Zoom (includes 8 page and cover about him with an interview. As cited, cover and pages 34-41.)

Thanks for letting me know it is well written. Please let me know what I can do next to help you with this entry and verification of the three cited articles above. Wikifashionwriter (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wikifashionwriter: Yes, as you suspect, the fact that I can't see those 3 indepth pieces is an issue. In theory, printed sources are just as usable as online sources, but in practice they do make reviewing difficult, since they aren't easily accessible. That could also make things difficult at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, which is our goal here in reviewing, to pass articles that would likely survive that process. We can't encourage you to scan the magazines and put them online, as that would be copyright violation. Here are a few methods that might help though.

Can you show that the articles are indepth by the way in which you use them as sources? Currently, each of the 3 citations you point out are used only one time each, and not necessarily backing anything more substantial than the smaller articles are. Take a look at the references section of the most recent article I wrote - not that it's a particularly brilliant or shining example that should be emulated in other ways, but can you tell without reading them that references 1 and 5 are almost certainly substantial, indepth pieces about the subject simply from the fact that they're used to cite multiple different facts in different places in our article? If they really are 6 or 8 page indepth articles about him, surely they must include multiple important and interesting facts that would be valuable to include in our article.
In fact, you're losing a lot by having so many smaller "sources", especially in your huge list of names in the #Fashion Photography section. The fact that you have 30 "sources" that are just list of magazines that he photographed for, but which aren't actually sources about him hides the real sources, such as those main 3. I strongly advise you to remove those sources. If you really feel that having a list of famous models he photographed and magazines he made the cover for is essential, surely one of the actual sources can be used to cite most or all of the list.
There's an additional trick you can use, the |quote= parameter of the cite news template. Include the actual text from the source that you are using to back the fact; no more than a sentence or two, but that will demonstrate that these 3 sources are actual articles with indepth text, and not just 6-8 pages of photos with one sentence each. (Fashion magazines, for example - considering your user name - are notorious for "articles" like that, that display glossy photos, but no real information.)
Another problem is that I am not a history photography expert, don't know much about those magazines, and can't be sure those 3 magazines are Wikipedia:Reliable sources. That would generally mean that these were magazines that had a reputation, that they were respected in the field, so that if they devoted 6-8 pages to a person, that would mean that person was important, Wikipedia:notable. Unfortunately, we don't seem to have any Wikipedia articles about those magazines that would say that. Can you maybe find some reliable sources that write about those 3 magazines, that do say that those magazines were actually important, influential, and reputable? This wouldn't be information that would go directly into the Silverstein article, so should be lower priority, but would be useful to have ready to present in the hopefully hypothetical AfD, should someone bring up this very issue; and they would be useful in writing Wikipedia articles about those magazines, also a good thing. You could put them on the article talk page, for example. --GRuban (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Reminder

Don't forget those pages are under all kinds of DS restrictions. Don't want you getting in trouble. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh sure. I'm a discusser, not a fighter. --GRuban (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

MrPichurFinder....

An image request just came across my desk for Morgause and Igraine. Is it within the realm of possibility? ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. :-( Not easily at least. I looked a little, will look again. Arthur, Lady of the Lake, Morgan, Merlin - sure. Morgause and Ygraine ... not so much. --GRuban (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I received the following clue: Morgause ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Aha. That is Gareth and Queen Bellicent, but our article Morgause does say that is a name for her. The whole work is also online at http://www.gutenberg.org/files/35598/35598-h/35598-h.htm but the link you gave is better resolution than the images there. You - and your mysterious source -are better at finding these things than I am! Will upload soon, probably tomorrow, if you or someone else don't get to it first. --GRuban (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Let me know when it's ready.

And thank you!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme:

Done--GRuban (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Hot diggity - you are eeeee-ficient!!! Thank you! ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

... wait, wait, I may have an Igraine for you as well! http://www.gutenberg.org/files/52139/52139-h/52139-h.htm --GRuban (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Hah. I have 4! I put one in the Igraine infobox, but you may prefer another or want to use more than one. They're all good, much better than "Gareth and Queen Bellicent".

--GRuban (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: I also had hopes for this wonderful picture of Morgause and Lamorak https://theoddestinkling.wordpress.com/2014/07/04/738/ - quite a contrast from "Gareth and Queen Bellicent"! - but it's from a 1930 book; it's a UK book, and UK copyright for that period is life of author +70 years; the author Charles Williams, d.1945, qualifies, but the illustrator, Norman Janes, lived until 1980. C'est la vie, so to speak. --GRuban (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Literarily ~~spanking~~ speaking...😉 ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kathleen Hogan has been accepted

Kathleen Hogan, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Legacypac (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Brad Smith (American lawyer)

On 6 June 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Brad Smith (American lawyer), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Microsoft's Brad Smith has filed multiple data privacy lawsuits against the US government? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Brad Smith (American lawyer). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Brad Smith (American lawyer)), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 03:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Just curious...

Have you ever thought about being an admin? ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I've been asked, and in theory would love to work against the declining numbers in principle, but don't really have a specific calling. Also I'm not as active as some. I used to do a bit of RfC closing, for which the mop is occasionally useful, but haven't done much in a while there. I have shown up at RfPP and AIV a few times but probably less than 20 times each. I haven't done much AfD participation recently. So I wouldn't really be able to say "if you approve me as your admin, I will do X!" It would probably come off as "If you approve me as your admin, I will occasionally do various and sundry stuff as I come across it, without a real specialty in mind", which is the way I edit articles, but I imagine people will want more from an admin. It certainly isn't great as a campaign slogan. --GRuban (talk) 01:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you're knowledgeable enough, and definitely have the temperament for the mop. We have admins now who show-up less than a month all-totaled per year. Look what just happened to one who was both an admin and a crat. Admin perfection is a fallacy - temperament and willingness to learn/adapt far surpasses experience in popular areas - in my view, anyway - and so do content creators and DYK participants, etc. If an admin was willing to nominate you, would you consider it? ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, you say the nicest things. Yes, I might consider it. I need to hear back from a man about a dog … er, from User:Newyorkbrad about an email I sent him. An admin you say? Are there admins in the conspiracy? --GRuban (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It would be a shame to be dismissed over editing activity that is relatively low but consistent over the years. Your work can definitely benefit from adminship and your specialty areas (such as RSN and BLPN) are desperately in need of admin help I think. If I am deemed worthy, I'd love to write a nomination statement. Not sure if ORCP is worth the time... Alex Shih (talk) 03:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Alex. Brad acknowledged my email but wants to write me something useful in a few days. So I need to borrow some tenterhooks to spend those days upon. (On a side note, I just realized that his initials are not unknown in my field...) --GRuban (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Wondering if you saw this issue of Signpost, particularly Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-06-29/Op-ed? 😊 ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Yup. Please read User:GRuban/RfA and comment User talk:GRuban/RfA if you have anything to say that you haven't said already. Any talk page stalkers (do I have any?) are also welcome to comment before I face the long guns, especially if that comment is "Oh God, No!". --GRuban (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Obscurity is a good thing when being considered at RfA - admins are supposed to be quiet (don't speak until spoken to) - work their little

off, act like an

, deflect/defuse PAs, be a calming presence in the midst of disruption, and display a temperament that towers above normal human behavior $\S/$ . You are the perfect candidate. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thank you very much for the kind welcome-to-Wikipedia message. You prompted me to work up the courage to try my hand at creating an article. Mdfalco (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Closing an RfC

Hi, when you close an RfC, please don't use {{rfc top}}/{{rfc bottom}}, as you did here. This causes Legobot (talk · contribs) to misconstrue it as an open RfC, with this result which leads directly to this mislisting. Instead, use {{closed rfc top}}/{{closed rfc bottom}} which is identical in desired effect but is ignored by Legobot. Thanks. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Thanks for telling me! It used to be the recommended way, but I see it changed. Will do. I imagine {{archive top}}/{{archive bottom}} works?--GRuban (talk) 10:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

That said; isn't the right thing to do in this situation to fix the bot? I mean, the RfC top template was made to be put at the top of closed rfcs, before the bot started. Asking people to change something they do to make a new bot job's easier seems like the wrong way to fix the problem. --GRuban (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the bot should be fixed (and indeed this has been suggested before, several times - see for example Template talk:Rfc top#Requested move 26 December 2016) but if you have been following User talk:Legobot, User talk:Legoktm and WP:BON, you'll realise that no amendments will happen, except possibly the removal of one or more tasks from Legobot. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Vera Gedroits

On 30 June 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Vera Gedroits, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Princess Vera Gedroits (pictured)—good author but indifferent poet, lesbian but married a man—was a Russian military surgeon who pioneered battlefield laparotomy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Vera Gedroits. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Vera Gedroits), 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) 00:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Goldsberry image

Hello, thank you for your message. We are working with client to release an appropriate image for reuse and modification. JumpTheShark15 (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

For this ([3]). I was actually going to write Jbh a comment to ask them to elaborate/reflect on that arbitration case, but I think if they can answer your question as it is, it would provide the clarification needed. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

--GRuban (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Emily Care Boss

Hey there, thanks for putting some work into Emily Care Boss - that one languished in WP:DRAFT space for some time, until I restored it last year, so glad to see that people have been able to add more to it lately. RPG bios are always in need of more help! BOZ (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The lady herself asked for the edits on WP:BLPN. Least I could do! (Even if she is a systemless advocate. Dice forever!) If we're lucky, she'll send a better free licensed photo than that one I scrounged somewhere. --GRuban (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Awesome, yeah, I saw that so thanks for taking care of that. :) I originally found the article had been deleted by PROD in 2011 so I restored it about 5 years ago to work on it. I've tried to do what I can in the area of RPG bios! BOZ (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Sarah Jeong DR

Hello, I have brought the unfruitful Sarah Jeong discussion to dispute resolution and am notifying you because you have commented on the Talk page since August 3. You can find a link here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Sarah_Jeong. All the best, Ikjbagl (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Two years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Coincidence Detector Link Removal

Why did you revert the edit I made, linking to the official website for the "Coincidence Detector"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_parentheses 2605:6000:6947:AB00:B8C2:455A:2ED8:DE26 (talk) 09:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Because of our Wikipedia:External links guideline. The first sentence there says "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article." So it shouldn't be in the article body in any case. Then, there is Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided #3, which says "Sites containing malware, malicious scripts, trojan exploits, or content that is illegal to access in the United States." The sentence you linked it in read "On June 3, 2016, following the publishing of the Mic article, Google pulled the Coincidence Detector extension from the Chrome Web Store, citing a violation of its policies prohibiting “promotions of hate or incitement of violence”." A script that promotes hate or incites violence is pretty clearly a malicious script. --GRuban (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 20

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Robert Doar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to New America

Yascha Mounk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to New America

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

AfDs

Just curious...what is your experience level closing AfDs? ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 09:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I think I might have done a few, but ... um ... you know, not having the mop noticeably cuts down the options... yes, I get the hint, I should get off my keyster and RfA already, but, um, real life, and, um, other excuses, and ... I will, soon, really ... --GRuban (talk) 12:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @GR. As someone with whom you have rarely (if ever) iteracted; may I suggest you defer any run until 18 January 2019. It will probably garner you (even) more support Yours, ——SerialNumber54129 12:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Love your intuitiveness. As close as we are now to the Holidays I tend to agree with SN. AfD closes may benefit from it as well.

^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 14:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Marcela Valladolid Edit

Hello! I am new at this & hopefully I am posting my reply to your message correctly. As I was looking at Marcela's wiki yesterday, I noticed that under her personal life there was one simple mention of her actual family & then an entire paragraph of a scandalous affair with Paul Hollywood. Unsurprisingly, you view Paul Hollywood personal information and there is zero mention of an affair. So I removed the content from her page. I thought I gave a reason of it being irrelevant, as it is. If you are going to keep adding it back to her page, at least add it to Paul Hollywood's page, as well. I have always loved this site but now am finding many women who have less than ideal life choices added to their pages and yet, the men involved have nothing mentioned at all. This is a factual website that very obviously picks and chooses which "facts" to add or omit. This has absolutely nothing to do with Chef Marcela's long list of achievements and is a tiny blip in her life and career. I hope you can correct this and make it right. Thrasher always wins (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

You may have a good point, will look at the other article. --GRuban (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I looked. You are correct that it wasn't mentioned in Paul Hollywood, so I added it. Our rule for these things is Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures, which specifically uses the example of an affair. We don't write about these things unless they are widely covered by very reliable sources. In this case, the coverage includes the BBC and the Daily Telegraph, which are such sources. You are also right that it wasn't a big part of her career; so we shouldn't give it more than a couple of sentences. But we should give it those sentences. There is certainly room to expand her article with more about her career. --GRuban (talk) 03:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Ariadna Leonidovna Chasovnikova

Hola. I am hoping you can help me. I am working on the "stans" for Asian month, as our coverage for Central Asia is generally dismal. While searching through this book Prominent Personalities in the USSR I found Ariadna Chasovnikova, who was the Deputy Chair of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Kazakh SSR. There is a very brief biography of her in the book and while searching, I found many snippets that suggest her notability, but nothing substantial that I could access, until I found this. It appears to be an obituary, which was published in the Социалистік Казахстан newspaper. (I was thrilled to find the archives, but frustrated that you cannot search it directly with the Russian alphabet). Unfortunately, the text portion of the clipping is gobbledeegook and untranslatable. As you are aware that I neither speak nor write Russian, I was hoping that you could translate it for me. Any help would be appreciated, as otherwise, my option is to copy and paste each character into a word doc to try to create something I can run through various translators. Thanks. SusunW (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's not Russian. I can't be sure, but I'm guessing it's probably Kazakh. I can read maybe 3/4 of the letters, and 1/20 of the words (other than the names). There might be some online OCR, let me see...--GRuban (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! SusunW (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I tried a couple of specialist services, https://convertio.co/ocr/kazakh/ which only got the second half, and https://www.text-extract.com/extract-kaz-text-pdf-to-pdf which was complete gibberish. But https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=kk&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fnewspaperarchive.com%2Falmaty-socialistik-kazakstan-aug-21-1988-p-3%2F is ... only 50% gibberish, and does the translation immediately.

Google OCR to text:

Ариадна Леонидовна ЧАСОВНИКОВА 1988 жылгы 20 августа 70 жас-ка квраган шагында 1940 жылдан КПСС мушес!, одактык Аэ-режедег1 дербес пенсионер Ариадна Лээнидовна Часовни-кова кайтыс болды. А. Л. Часовникова 1918 жылы 8 ноябрьде ©скемен каласыкда Кызметш1н1н семьясында дуниеге келген. Томск мемлекеттж универси-тет1н бтрген сон 1941-1942 жылдары азот тыцайткышы за-водында инженер-химик болып ж у мы с ¡стед). 1942-1945 жылдары калалык. одан кей1н об-лыстьщ жоспарлау комиссиясы-нын председател1 кыэмет1н ат-карды. 1945 жылдан 1949 жылта дейж А. Л. Часовникова СССР Мемлекетт1к жоспарлау коми-тетж1н Казан' ССР-1 бойынша екшд1г1н1н апларатында ага экономист-бакылаушы болып татайындалды. 1949 жылдан 1967 жылга де-й!н А. Л. Часовникова Казан ССР Министрлер Совет! жанын-Aafbi Орталын статистика бас-нармасы бастытынын орынбасары, кейжнен бастыть» нызме-TÎH атнерды. 1967 жылы Казан ССР Жогарры Совет1 Президиу- мы Председателж1н орынбасары, Каэанстан Компартиясы Орталын Комитет1н1н мушес) болып сайланды. 1978 жылы А. Л. Часовникова нурметт1 демаяысна шынты. А. Л. Часовникова asine тап-сырылраи барлык ныэметте ти-icri м1ндет|'н атнарура улкен жауалкершшжлен парады, ха-лын депутаттары Советтержщ ролж кетеруге кап енбек сщ'Р-д>. Ариадна Леонидовна инабат-тылырымен, к1шшейшд1л1г1мен жане талалшылдырымен рас-публиканын барша енбекш1ле-PÌhi'h HYPM8T'Ha белендц А. Л. Часовннкованын с!н>Р-ген енбег» Енбек Кызыл Ту, ек( «Курмет Белгк!» ордендер1мен, медальдармен аталып атть Принципшш коммунист, ¡с-кер уйымдастырушы, сергекте к1ш1пей1л адам Ариадна Леонидовна Часовникованын жар-нын бейнес! б!зд¡н жур®г'м»з-де ернашан санталады. Г. В. Колбин, Е. Ф. Башмаков, il. Е. Даулотова, О. Жэжбеков, 3. К. Камалиденоа, С. К¥* башев, В. А. Кузьменко, М. С. Мецд1баев, Ю. А. Мещеряков, Н. Э. Назарбаев, С. В. Ур-жумов, Э. X. Гукасов, Л, М. Мирошник, О. В. Виноградов, В. В. Сидорова, А. А. Устинов, С. С. Нурпенков, Е. В. Гвоздев, Л И. Думанов, Т. Ж. Жумасултанов , К. А. Анаев, 3. I. Кабылов.

Google translated from that OCR, sort of:

Ariadna Leonidovna CHASOVNIKOVA On August 20, 1988 at the age of 70 he was a member of the CPSU since 1940, and his personal pensioner Ariadna Leyididovna Chapovni-kova died in 1940. A. L. Chasovnikova was born on November 8, 1918 in the Dominican Republic. After graduating from the Tomsk State University in 1941-1942, he became an engineer-chemist for the nitrogen-fixing agent. Between 1942 and 1945. and subsequently appointed the chairman of the Planning Commission. From 1945 to 1949 A. L. Chasovnikova has been appointed as economist-supervisor of the State Planning Commission of the USSR for Kazan SSR-1. From 1949 to 1967, L. Часовникова Казан ССР Министров Совет! Deputy Chief of General Staff, Chief Accountant, Deputy Chief of Staff of the Department of Statistics. In 1967 he was elected as the Deputy Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Kazan SSR, and a member of the Central Committee of the Cayenne Communist Party. In 1978 A. L. Часовникова нурметт1 демаяйся шын. A. L. Chasovnikova is a major contributor to the disincentive of all the members of the Soviet Union, who have been a member of the Soviet Union. Ariadna Leonidovna was dismissed by all the public officials and public figures as plaintiffs-PÌhi'h HYPM8T'Ha belendz A. L. Chasovnnkova's novelist, Enbek Kizil Tuu, two orders ("Kurmet Belqk!", Medals, princibshsh communist, co-organizer, renowned novelist Ariadna Leonidovna Chasovnikova,
GV Kolbin, EF Bashmakov, Y.Daulotova, O.Zhejbekov, 3. K. Kamalideno, S. K ¥ * başev, V. K. and others. A. Kuzmenko, M. M. Metsdibaev, Yu.M. Meshcheryakov, N. Nazarbayev, S. VV Urusov, E.H. Gukasov, L.Miroshnik, OV Vinogradov, V.Mushtyrov V. Sidorova, A. Ustinov, S. S. Nurchpenkov, EV Gvozdev, L. Dumanov, T. Zhumasultanov , KAAnayev, 3. I. Kabylov

Some of this is immediately fixable, she instead of he, Kazakh instead of Kazan ... but some of this is mysterious at best - for example I seriously doubt she was born in the Dominican Republic! If you really have the energy, you can start by taking the OCR and replacing the clearly incorrect letters, then putting it through Google Translate again; but it will take work. --GRuban (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no earthly idea how you did that, but totally appreciate it. Women's articles always take work :). I'm happy to do it. Thank you SOOOOOO much! SusunW (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I tried a bit of OCR fixing. https://www.lexilogos.com/keyboard/kazakh.htm lets me substitute the right Kazakh letters and then put the result into Google Translate. That mysterious second sentence, "А. Л. Часовникова 1918 жылы 8 ноябрьде ©скемен каласыкда Кызметш1н1н семьясында дуниеге келген." is probably "А. Л. Часовникова 1918 жылы 8 ноябрьде Өскемен каласыкда Кызметшінін семьясында дуниеге келген." Putting that through Google Translate (and insisting that it is Kazakh, not Kyrgyz!) becomes "A. L. Chapovnikova was born on November 8, 1918 in Ust-Kamenogorsk, in the Dominican Republic." Slightly better, at least Ust-Kamenogorsk makes sense, though I can't figure out what the Dominican Republic is supposed to be. --GRuban (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

LOL, Dominican Republic. I pulled up your script, a copy of the Russian alphabet and have been replacing characters one at a time. Slow, but it is how I must do Russian text. Then I pass it through a couple of translators to make sure I understand it. Yes, on all these Central Asian ones, it google seems to pull up the wrong language. I have no idea why. *sigh* SusunW (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Aha! In Kazakh, there are apparently very similar letters to the Russian ones, but with tiny tails! н is not the same as ң! That sentence is actually "А. Л. Часовникова 1918 жылы 8 ноябрьде Өскемен каласыкда қызметшінің семьясында дуниеге келген" which becomes "A. L. Chasovnikova was born on November 8, 1918 in Ust-Kamenogorsk in a working-class neighborhood"! That makes much more sense. --GRuban (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the "і" character is coded as either ! or 1 in various words. Makes a huge difference :) SusunW (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@SusunW: Did you see this one? https://newspaperarchive.com/almaty-socialistik-kazakstan-may-07-1975-p-2/ Lower left corner, at least bottom three paragraphs are relevant, and possibly more of the whole article. The Google OCR/Translation needs letter correction, but I suspect this is about her being nominated to her post. --GRuban (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The collective farm "Kazakh SSR for 30 years!" Has been held in Uspensky district of Pavlodar region before the elections. There is a secretary secretary of the party! O. K. Deputy Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Kazakh SSR has nominated Deputy Chairman Alyadna Chasovnikova to the post of the Supreme Soviet of the Kazakh SSR. This offer is from the school's educator! O. A. Clensen, mousse D. Eckert, secretary of Komsomol collective farm G. Brodt, kolkhoz motor depot dispatcher! A. Я. Schultz was in attendance: "Ariadna Leonidovna Chasovnikova №298 Uspenka constituency"! by the Kazakh SSR.

Павлодар облысы Успен ауданындагы «Казак ССР 30 жылдын,!» колхозынын медениет сайлау алдында-болып ет- уи.нде гы жинелыс т!. Онда свйлеген колхоз парт-комыньщ секретарь! О. К. Гер-лиц Казак ССР Жогаргы Сове-т1 Президиумы Председател!НЩ орынбасары Ариадна Леонидовна Часовникованы Казак ССР Жогаргы Совет'жщ депутаттыгына кандидат етт усынды. Бул усынысты срта мектеп мугал!м! О. А. Классен, сауын-ШЫ М. Д. Эккерт, колхоз комсомол уйымыньщ секретеры Г. Бродт, колхоз автобазасыиын диспетчер! А. Я. Шульц колда-ДЫ- Жиналыс мынадаи «аулы ка-былдады: Ариадна Леонидовна Часовникова №298 Успен сайлау округ'! бойынша Казак ССг

Ooh, no I didn't. Thank you! Slow going, character by character. Besides the pesky "і", the "к" and "н" are often confused, as is "ік" and "ж", and "г" and "т". But, I'm making headway! Slow going, but definitely enough there to confirm notability. I'll work on the new one after I finish this one. Thank you so much. SusunW (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Ariadna Chasovnikova enough to get a start class article. Hopefully others who have access to sources I cannot open from Mexico can expand it. Thank you so very much for your help! SusunW (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

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

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

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

It's time for pants with an elastic waistband...

Want more yams? No thanks, I'm stuffed.	Wishing You A Happy Turkey Day!
	Thanksgiving chuckles... What smells best at a Thanksgiving dinner? Your nose. What did the turkey say to the computer? Google, google, google. 😊🦃 ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 21:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Ho-hi-ho it's back to work we go....

I'm still stuffed! Ok - any idea where I can get pictures for the infoboxes of Jerry Frankel and Jeffrey Richards (producer)? ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 18:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, couldn't find free images. Here is my general procedure:

http://images.google.com, search, note what the subject looks like (this will not find free images, but still a crucial step so as to recognize the person when I do see them, and not confuse them with other people of the same name) then Tools->Usage rights->Labeled for reuse with modification
http://youtube.com, search, then Filter->Creative Commons. Those first two steps get hits maybe 25% of the time. The next steps are even lower probability.
If the person is likely to appear before US congress, look on Google for photos or YouTube for videos of that; if they were shot by congress critters, or other federal employees in the course of their duties, they are likely public domain, even if the congress critters don't mark them that way. CSpan videos of the floor of the House and Senate are also public domain: https://www.c-span.org/about/copyrightsAndLicensing/
If the person is likely to visit US military bases (strangely enough, conservative authors and country western singers sometimes do), https://www.dvidshub.net. If found, make sure the photo was taken by a Federal govt employee, a few there aren't.
If the person's picture is likely to have been been published before 1923, first go back to the Google search, and click on likely looking images, mostly black and white, also look in http://books.google.com and https://www.google.com/search?q=uther+and+igraine+site:gutenberg.org (the Gutenberg.org search is terrible, Google search on Gutenberg.org is better)
If willing to put in more effort, and face even more rejection, look for a Flickr image that isn't free, and write the photographer if they're willing to release it, change the license on the site to Creative Commons Attribution or Attribution Share-Alike. This can take days, sometimes months, to get any response, and that response is usually "no" .... but sometimes it is "yes". This worked for Modest Stein (the previous step worked there too).

I see this non-free Flickr image one for Jerry Frankel: https://www.flickr.com/photos/27887734@N08/2594040532/ and this non-free YouTube video for Jeffrey Richards: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkDItIlWqCA you could try writing them and asking if they would be so kind as to change the license, again if you feel bold. --GRuban (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I won't be writing Frankel unless you have his forwarding address in the afterlife...but I was just about to contact Richards. In the interim, thank you berry berry much for your efforts. 🍓 🍓🍰🤗 ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 22:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Rachel Parent

I discussed (or tried to discuss these issues on the talk page as suggested but I'm not a big Wikipedia user and I come from a professional environment.). You can see the result of that discussion carried over to the deletion page. Another user described this attack as chilling - so you can see why I'm defensive. This is my ignorance and trying to help those less cognizant of the issue but more experienced editorially. The editor who has repeatedly attacked me has got her wish. I'm out. This is only the third time I've tried to help Wikipedia - in each case, these are people I've researched, often in depth and often have information that I can't even allude to here. All three are women (sadly) and that seems to have attracted the ire of "feminists" who believe I'm attacking these women out of hand. I don't. I have better things to do with my time and in each case, I have evidence of wrongdoing on their part, sometimes from witnesses other times from published sources, etc. However, I don't appreciate being attacked. I came here with good intentions and will shortly be leaving for good. Multiple authors have done what the news people should and have established the link between Rachel and her father's business. Smidoid (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks like the link is now mentioned in the article: Rachel Parent#Criticism. --GRuban (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

GRuban For the record I added the WP:NOTFORUM template to the talk page diff and was subsequently accused of being chilling and threatening. The rest of the thread is utter garbage. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I've just realized that there was this as well. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:GRuban. 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.