User talk:Jerzy/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Please don't change BC to BCE without discussion

Hello Jerzy, I noticed you recently changed BC to BCE in Siege of Syracuse and its associated articles. Are you aware of WP:ERA? The rule states that era style changes should not be made unless there is a good reason and that a personal preference is not valid to do so. You argued that it needed to changed because the subject is not related to church history, but usage of BC is in fact traditional even in ancient (pre-Christian) history. A Google Scholar search on usage of BC or BCE in scholarship on the Peloponnesian War actually tells us that BC is used more often than BCE. Could you please undo all your era style changes to these articles? Even so, thank you for fixing the wikilink to Hicetas. --AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

You still haven't written a reply here, but I see you have been editing Wikipedia as recently as 19 December. Could you please respond and revert your changes? If I don't hear from you, I'll revert the changes you made myself in a few days. --AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 11:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

   P'raps you're right, which might be the case e.g. if someone got away with reversing the previously crystal clear relevance standard. The mills grind slowly....
--Jerzy•t 02:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, but I don't understand what you're saying? How is this issue related to the relevance standard? I've noticed you haven't done any reverts of your BCE changes since your reply, so my question still stands. Will you revert your changes or not? I would have done so myself days ago, but I would appreciate your confirmation that you don't object to reverting your changes. In other words, I don't want to start an edit war. --AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 11:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

  @AlexanderVanLoon:
  Sorry; substantial response in progress.
--Jerzy•t 09:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm disappointed you still haven't managed to reply. I'm also frustrated that I had to do this work to revert all your unwarranted BC to BCE changes and moves myself. I (and others) have taken the following actions:

Sicilian Expedition was reverted by User:OneGreek

Siege of Syracuse (397 BC) was reverted by User:Cplakidas for the same WP:ERAS reason

Siege of Syracuse (311–309 BC) I've reverted myself

Siege of Syracuse (214–212 BCE) I can't revert myself, so I've requested an admin to do so at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial technical requests

Siege of Syracuse I've reverted, but also rewritten it for more pleasing layout, keeping part of your changes.

List of sieges of Syracuse I've nominated for removal, because it adds nothing compared with the disambiguation page Siege of Syracuse. You seem to indicate that disambigation page was non-compliant, but I'm not sure according to which Wikipedia policies you came to that conclusion. After your last edits, the links to sieges which had no article yet were removed from the disambiguation page. Then your list/set index article did list the sieges without the articles and of course excluded the film mention on the disambiguation page. It doesn't seem like the list article serves much of a purpose. I've edited the disambiguation page again and restored the links to the unwritten articles (which are actually useful according to WP:RED), I'll write them later anyway. When that's done, the only difference between the list article and the disambiguation page will be the mention of the film. Can we please just remove the list article then? --AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 10:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

  @AlexanderVanLoon:
   (Tho not without misgivings ...) i'm not even going to try to parse out what "we" means in your last sentence. I (not only assume but also) little doubt that your intentions are good, but IMO you are misguided about both what the content should be and about what process would have been, and still would be, appropriate for moving forward. It may help (even if it does not satisfy you) to summarize by saying that you've won your dispute with me: i'm not bloodyminded enough to pursue the matter further. If you care enuf to hunt down another admin, who agrees with you or perhaps would rather satisfy you than explain why not, you can almost surely accomplish whatever it is you're seeking without my help.
   I will, however, do you the courtesy of urging you to recheck WP:RED in light of the Dab guidelines (WP:MOSDAB, IIRC, but perhaps also WP:DAB) which are very thoroly applied, to the effect that any Dab entry always has a single blue link and only under specific conditions may have in addition a red-link; i find those guidelines much more compelling than the BCE ones, and i will have no hesitation in editing the Dab page to ensure compliance with them. If you don't get why, my advice is to request guidance on the corresponding policy talkpage, or do some serious study in the archives of the relevant talkpage(s): Relatively very few editors have enuf interest to really understand abt Dab'n.
--Jerzy•t 18:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I just replied to you on my own talk page after you left a message there, but I'll post here as well to make sure you receive it. I agree that I was mistaken on the red link and dab guidelines and will leave the list article for what it is. I've made some further changes to the dab page today because I've written new articles for two of the sieges which had no articles, but as far as I know it still conforms to the dab guidelines. AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Koch and X-mass

talk kept 'talking' to talk about BPD this meant nothing to User:X-mass and thus what we have here is failure to communicate When User:X-mass went to User:Collect page and discovered that BPD actually meant wp:bpd loud swear words was heard from their mouth and no more edits were done nor will they! I hope this helps. I didn't self revert because I had already been reverted. X-mass (talk) 09:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

oops obviously I am doing the links wrong - please edit me so that it appears correctly - if you so wish! X-mass (talk) 09:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

X-Mass is not a "new user" and I suspected that he already knew about WP:BLP and WP:EW thus I did not "template" him. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

   Sorry, Collect; i don't recall intending to be as critical of your communication as it now seems i sounded to you. There's no such thing as a private discussion on talk pages, and IMO, most users (or at least too many to ignore) learn their way around WP by reading editing-issue discussions on talk pages that they run across by chance; i am thus likely to respond to that (often obsessive-compulsively) by linking things -- whether or not i imagine that those who've already read the previous comments might still benefit from my comments).
--Jerzy•t 11:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

   X-Mass, IIRC i've not previously addressed you; much less have i intended to make requests of you. (You are, however, as free as all other editors and readers to learn from my comments if you care to.) For what it's worth, i do offer you -- for your own benefit if you choose to recognize that -- a rule of thumb (preceded by 3 others that are equally important, and offer context) about using links in your remarks:

1. It's so fundamental an aid to comprehension that wise novice editors study the basic techniques that have been carefully made accessible, rather than begging colleagues' favors to make up for the novice's neglect.
2. If a discussion is free of conflict, a unnecessary link that makes a little joke may lighten the mood for a few of one's colleagues, without significantly annoying the rest.
3. When there are, or have recently been, conflict or substantial misunderstandings, limit your links to the pages and sections being discussed, and those that flesh out the meanings of abbreviations, or link to comments, guidelines, and policy points that are neither universally obvious nor obviously relevant.
4. Take responsibility for what you link to, especially by A'ngGF, avoiding sarcasm, and e.g. not linking a description of a misunderstanding to a classic example of enforcing compliance with brutal and deadly force.

--Jerzy•t 11:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Article maintenance note re del in support of move of _Art of Grammar_ to The Art of Grammar

   It's been some time since i recall moving an article over a Rdr, so i'm making a note (irrelevant tho IIRC it will be) of what's at The Art of Grammar before the move.
Its content is:

#REDIRECT Art of Grammar {{R from other name}}

its only history entry begins:

(cur | prev) 23:39, 18 March 2015‎ user:Jerzy (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (50 bytes) (+50)‎

and there is no talk page. --Jerzy•t 07:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of List of works titled as "cycles" for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of works titled as "cycles" is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of works titled as "cycles" until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Re: 661198197

I do not want to make you disappointed, but this username is already busy! - I took it from the film Flushed Away some years ago! - Innocent bystander (talk) 11:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

   Sorry, but i don't think you are the quasi-IP user i was addressing, nor understand what you hope your communication to me could facilitate. (And for that matter i'm pretty vague about what i should learn from this presumably relevant page's quite recent entries.) I suggested "Innocent bystander" to the quasi-IP, in Talk:Rough ride (police brutality)#Police Practice?, bcz it appeared to be unused on en:WP, and i expected them to be more effective here by establishing an en:WP username.
--Jerzy•t 07:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I was suprised when I came here and you had "pinged" me! No, I'm not the quasi-IP. (I have a semi-stable dynamic IPv4) That my username has no edits here is because it wasn't SULed until recently. I have been here as IP for several years. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

   OK, i don't understand completely, but you've put my mind at ease. Tnx.
--Jerzy•t 22:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

For the record...

"Neberu" is an alternate spelling of "Nibiru" (Babylonian cuneiform did not have vowels) and "Neberu" redirects to the "Nibiru" page. So people searching for "Neberu" would end up at "Nibiru". Serendi^podous

   See the article talk page.
--Jerzy•t 08:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for writing up Earl Shaffer--also on behalf of Twinemi1; Walter Winemiller was his uncle. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Gofer for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gofer is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gofer until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peon (slang), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages South Asian English and Odd job. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 28 December

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

• On the Macy's Herald Square page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move - tax per head

Last year, you participated in a requested move discussion at Talk:Tax per head. A second RM discussion (re-proposing the same move that was rejected last year) has recently been opened at Talk:Tax per head#Requested_move_29_December_2015.

I thought that I would alert you in case you wanted to participate in the discussion. Thanks, Neutrality^talk 15:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nation Builder (December 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Nation Builder and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 20:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Note to self (& FWhomIMayConcern, for that matter)

   A miscarriage of process, FWIW, and following these pages may serve for harm reduction: Nation Builder Talk:Nation Builder NationBuilder Talk:NationBuilder
--Jerzy•t 16:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced article creation: Osborn Playground "gang rape" allegations

The Osborn Playground gang rape is seemingly a hoax. Here are some sources for that in case you wish to read them:

• "4 of 5 Suspects in Brooklyn Park Gang-Rape Case Set Free" http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/01/suspects-in-brooklyn-rape-case-set-free.html

• "4 Suspects Are Expected to Be Released in Brooklyn Rape Case" http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/15/nyregion/4-brooklyn-rape-suspects-expected-to-be-released-as-officials-try-to-sort-out-case.html

• "DA stalls for time as Brooklyn gang rape case crumbles" http://nypost.com/2016/01/14/da-stalls-for-time-as-brooklyn-gang-rape-case-crumbles/

Everything on Wikipedia needs a source but especially topics like this where no one has been convicted of rape, only accused/charged. 64.134.64.190 (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

   Tnx! I hadn't been following it any further; "hoax" may well be the right word.
--Jerzy•t 18:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Attention: Potions in Harry Potter will be placed for AfD on June 4, 2016

(You are receiving this notice due to your having made some edits to the article discussed or its talk page sometime during its history)

In November of 2007 Potions in Harry Potter was deleted as a the result of a deletion discussion due to its failure of WP:FICT, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF, and other issues. On June 4, 2015 the article was recreated from content then currently existing on the Magical objects in Harry Potter article. A discussion followed regarding the appropriateness of the recreation. An attempt was made to return this article to a redirect, which was undone a day later. Some months later, a notice was placed on the article's talk page indicating the article would be placed for deletion. A few days ago, the article was placed for proposed deletion. This too was undone.

Throughout the history of the article, which spans more than a decade, it has never had any references. It has always been written in in-universe style. No outside universe perspective has ever been provided. As of June 2016, it will have been tagged for both of these problems for a year. I have asked, begged, and pleaded with people to rewrite this article to no avail. As the article stands (and has always stood), it continues to fail WP:FICT, WP:PLOT, and WP:WAF. There have been suggestions to merge the content back to Magical objects in Harry Potter, but this completely fails to address the failures noted. Where the content exists, either in its own article or as part of another, matters not. The issue is the content itself.

Barring a massive rewrite of the entire article into something that is encyclopedic in its treatment of the subject, I will be placing it for deletion on June 4, 2016. This notice is being sent as a last ditch attempt to find one or more people willing to do something to fix the serious problems extant in this content. Thank you for your attention, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Ouevre listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ouevre. Since you had some involvement with the Ouevre redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

   That Rdr reflects my shaky Franco-vocab. My available WP tools have been poor enuf for some weeks that i've not been keeping up, but that Rdr should IIRC be updated, tho urgency does not apply.
--Jerzy•t 22:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Michael Chaplin (actor) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Chaplin (actor) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Chaplin (actor) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. KDS4444 (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Josephine Chaplin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Josephine Chaplin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josephine Chaplin until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. KDS4444 (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Christopher Chaplin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christopher Chaplin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Chaplin until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. KDS4444 (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Robert N. Clinton

The article Robert N. Clinton has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Robert N. Clinton for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert N. Clinton is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert N. Clinton until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Orange Mike | Talk 05:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Army of Hope for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Army of Hope is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Army of Hope until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rathfelder (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 28

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Blood libel (novel usage)

The article Blood libel (novel usage) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced, apparently originally researched dictionary definition.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kolbasz (talk) 09:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

   The proposal is hasty -- we don't delete breaking news for being unfinished, and the existence of, and start of fixing and fleshing out what a colleague did in an unsuitable place, to the detriment of a well-developed, solid, and important article -- and ignores the fact that the tagged article is simply an expansion of clumsy, more-off-topic-than-on-topic content split out from Blood libel. Certainly it deserves refs, but they are clearly out there for the in the form of David Koch's claim to be a victim of Blood libel, and another by Sarah Palin (sounds like maybe a year ago?) cited today in discussing Koch's usage.
--Jerzy•t 10:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

"Next on deck for Penn State Nittany Lions"

You asked, "Can you tell me whether the verifiable facts are along the lines that PS c.a. is, colloquially, collectively called "Penn State Nittany Lions"? (I would guess that, if it is, "the Nittany Lions" would be equally acceptable, even tho i gather some or all of the women's teams are or were called "The Lady Lions", "Lady Lions", or the like)."

The athletic program is called the Pennsylvania State University Athletic Program. The teams in the various varsity sports that comprise the athletic program are officially called the Nittany Lions. I do not believe that "Lady Lions" is an official moniker, although it may be a registered trademark of the university. Only the women's basketball team is today called the Lady Lions, although no one bats an eyelash when someone calls them Nittany Lions. The term "Lady Lions" dates from the 1970s when Title IX was implemented. During that decade all of the women's varsity teams were called the Lady Lions, albeit unofficially. The practice of using the term "Lady" as a prefix to the mascot name was in wide use for many collegiate women's sports teams in the 1970s, e.g, Lady Lobos, Lady Bears, Lady Bulldogs, Lady Statesmen, etc. In the 1980s the practice waned and almost disappeared, which is still its current status. The name of the Penn State Lady Lions basketball team evokes the earlier era from which it has persisted. Jeff in CA (talk) 10:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

(Answered on his page)
--Jerzy•t 11:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Blood libel (novel usage) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Blood libel (novel usage) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood libel (novel usage) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kolbasz (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 7

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 15

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Alphonse Sirica

Hello Jerzy,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Alphonse Sirica for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. David.moreno72 06:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• See WP:Notability (academics). JohnCD (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

•    My interest in the stub is too limited to justify any further effort by me. IMO you're each wasting the time of yourself and, since i'm uncomfortable being rudely terse, the more so mine.
     My previous reply, and this one, are merely courtesies among colleagues. If you find any need to communicate further, please invoke the good offices of a disinterested admin or other designated mediator.
  --Jerzy•t 10:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 9

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The creek don't rise, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Creek. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Jerzy. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of counties in Michigan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sanilac. 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) 11:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Delphic

Having moved Delphic (band) to a disambiguated title, you not only failed to fix the 50+ incoming links to Delphic but also didn't even make a link to the band from the retitled dab page. Please take more care. I have added the band link so that at least the links to the dab page now offer a way to find the band, but please now fix all the incoming links so that readers go directly to the band rather than the dab page, as they did before your work. Thanks. PamD 08:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Barbarism

Hello, Jerzy. You created Barbarism (traditional linguistics) as a redirect to Classical compound. I don't believe that barbarism is or was a synonym for Latin or Greek compounds, though. I could be wrong – even though I've been a professional linguist for more a decade, I had never heard of an internationalism as a kind of word before encountering the label on Wikipedia. Could you point me to published sources that use barbarism in that sense?

Alternately, I wonder if this is the result of a misunderstanding. Some people have described Latin-Greek compounds as "barbarisms", but that is not a name for the compounds. Rather it is a judgement that such usage (e.g. combining a prefix borrowed from one language with a root from another) is "ignorant" and therefore "barbarous". Cnilep (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Jerzy.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Hi, the top of your Talk Page looks very intimidating to anyone who isn't used to Wiki editing. But, I just wanted to let you know there's some edit-warring going on at Don't Breathe, and I'd appreciate if you (or another appropriate admin you know) could resolve that matter. Thanks. --UltimateKuriboh (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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

Proposed deletion of À gogo (phrase)

The article À gogo (phrase) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article is a dictionary definition only – a quick search yields no significant coverage of the phrase in other reliable sources. See Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

  @Sangdeboeuf: I apologize for failing to notify you here about my removing the del'n template several days ago; my reasoning was fairly technical, and i did not intend to assume you would automatically find it persuasive! Let me know if we should discuss further.
--Jerzy•t 00:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. A simple redirect to À gogo seems like a sensible option. However, the template {{R from inadequate article}} that was added here doesn't seem to exist. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

   Yeah, i don't think i was expecting it to exist, and i don't feel guilty about pretending to invoke it: half irony, half calling a spade a g.d. shovel. The logic i stated -- if you don't know how to find it via my contribs page, ask me -- is IMO solidly in the mainstream of the logic of all the grounds for deletion & retention that we've created real templates for, and really, we ultimately put more stock in IAR than anything but our broadest values (of which, i'll hazard, some are too complicated to waste effort putting into words, let alone templatizing).
--Jerzy•t 03:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Ukelele Software listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ukelele Software. Since you had some involvement with the Ukelele Software redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Barbarism (traditional linguistics) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Barbarism (traditional linguistics). Since you had some involvement with the Barbarism (traditional linguistics) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Cnilep (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Lights Out! (band)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Lights Out! (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Lights Out! (band)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Lights Out! (band), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Lights Out!

A tag has been placed on Lights Out! requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Son, ah've been tuh a rodeo befaw.
--Jerzy•t 16:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Jerzy - What are you implying is either a goat-roping exercise or an effort to stay on a rough animal for 8 seconds? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Are you unfamiliar with my expression, or being sarcastic? As i can't parse your response this seems to be devolving and invite abandonment.
--Jerzy•t 02:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the expression. I would guess that it is a Western United States expression, and is not familiar in the Eastern United States, and probably even less familiar in other Anglophone countries. I have no idea what it means. However, the band was deleted as per a deletion discussion, and then the disambiguation page was turned into a target page. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Trilobites (article series)

The article Trilobites (article series) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not an article and not a stub of an article. Adds nothing to the encyclopedia.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jack Greenberg (lawyer)

A tag has been placed on Jack Greenberg (lawyer) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Bradv 06:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

   @Bradv: As i've indicated on your talk page, your deletion from my talk page of anything whose deletion is not requested by me, is utterly unacceptable (no, it doesn't belong to you); we can discuss why if you care to.
In the meantime -- unless another admin is helping you already -- i request that you explain to me what you had in mind and what went wrong (but i'll hold off for now trying to figure out how you would end up calling an Rdr a Dab page, and why there might ever be reason to delete a dab page in the first place).
   And for your (eventual) amusement, i'll tell you how the Dab may have gotten created in the first place, leading to my notification of your G6: Back in the days when WP was fully gestated and learning to walk, Joseph Greenberg was already, IIRC, the bio of a famous linguistics theorist, and WP had as an editor a ... well, a linguistics activist, whose theory that Basque and a particular Caucasian language (which can remain nameless) are close relatives, was doomed to cocked-hat status, perhaps for as long as Greenberg's Eurasiatic model was soaking up the influential academic posts in the field. Of course a serious linguist might feel obligated to do something to prevent undue delay (from concentration on a false theory) of the blossoming of the true theory of early Northeastern-Quadrisphere languages) by ... let's say, making sure the Rdr at Greenberg pointed to the head of an American toy company. I had no argument with the idea that the linguist stood ahead of the toy marketer, but one way or another i ended up in touch with someone with more experience here, who just might be the one who introduced me to the wonderful concept of Dab'n.
--Jerzy•t 08:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Eric Schmidt (disambiguation)

A tag has been placed on Eric Schmidt (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)