Misplaced Pages

User talk:I JethroBT

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BracketBot (talk | contribs) at 04:34, 13 October 2013 (Bot: Notice of potential markup breaking). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:34, 13 October 2013 by BracketBot (talk | contribs) (Bot: Notice of potential markup breaking)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
User talk
  • If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
  • If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
  • Please click here to leave me a new message.



NOTE: This user used to be I Jethrobot, but he never was a bot, nor did he ever own one like Susan Calvin.



Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23


This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Talk:Gemini (2002 Tamil film)/GA1

When you crossed out the old reviewer, I think you must have done something wrong, because it's messing up Misplaced Pages:Good article nominations/Topic lists/Media and drama. Could you fix this, please? Taylor Trescott - + my edits 11:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I'm sorry. Didn't expect that at all. I've updated the GA and removed the strike from the nominations page. I, JethroBT 13:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey! I have been replying to your suggestions at the article's talk page. Take a look and keep me updated-- Sriram Vikram (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
What happened to the review? Are you still doing it? -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but I work, am married, and am busy with other matters outside of Misplaced Pages. Please be patient and give me at least a week to finish the review. (BTW, some editors wait months before a GA review happens.) I, JethroBT 14:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I respect that. But I got to make myself available for the review process. That's why asked. -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry. I'll give you plenty of time to make the needed changes. I, JethroBT 15:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay. When you need me back for the review, just leave a message in my talk page. -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh my god! You are really a tough task master! Poor me!! :) -- Sriram 19:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The peer-review process can indeed, be pretty tough. Your writing is good, but everyone's writing can usually use some fine-tuning, even native speakers. Peer-review is worthwhile, trust me. You should see the GA reviewer I had for my first (and only) GA. I, JethroBT 19:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not a native speaker of English. That's why I'm finding it difficult to accept some suggestions. Most of these terminologies appear in most leading English newspapers in India. The so-called 'Indian English'. -- Sriram 20:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there some way to get a contents list on the talk page? -- Sriram 08:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid not. I did some looking around, but I didn't have any luck. I put a Table of Contents on the talk page, but it can only provide sections for the GA and the discussion. I, JethroBT 15:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
The TOC was what I asked for. Thanks for adding it. Sriram 18:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I did not want to keep mentioning your name everytime to grab your attention. So posted on your talk page. -- Sriram 02:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks you for completing the review in such a short time. By the way, I have replied to some comments in the discussion section. Can you take a look and let me know what you think? -- Sriram 08:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! The talk page template says "This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed." Can you fix it? And the category at the bottom too? -- Sriram 15:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Sure, but there's nothing keeping you from doing it yourself. This kind of removal is not really controversial, so it's OK even if you're the article creator. I, JethroBT 15:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh really! I thought the templates in the talk page should be edited by uninvolved editors. Does that mean that, if I create a new article, I can review the article myself and create it's talkpage? -- Sriram 16:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
There are different perspectives on this matter, so I can't speak for everyone. WP:ASSESSMENT provides some guidelines, but advises that "anyone can change an article's rating" and that it's up to the individual WikiProjects about how assessments should work. Assessments are largely for internal purposes, so aside from GA and FA status, the other grades don't really mean too much, so I don't consider self-rating in those grades to have any real negative consequences if it's inaccurate. My own opinion is that things like B-quality assessment and up should have someone else look at it, but even if it's your article, you can rate it C or below based on the relevant criteria on the WikiProject and your own judgment. As for rating importance, I generally leave this to others, but if I can't get anyone to rate it after asking, I usually rate it myself, and I usually rate it one lower than I think it ought to be, just to be one the safe side. As for other things, like whether a picture is needed, article creators are certainly OK to change those templates. If you're ever not sure, feel free to ask me or check in over at the Teahouse. I, JethroBT 23:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for that. I owe you. -- Sriram 04:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Anna Quick page

Hi!

Can you please have a look at Anna Quick and let me know if it's ok now? I'm new at this and it took me a while to figure out how to include references.

Thanks!

--LovesFilmandTV (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the proposed deletion notice, but I'm still not sure the subject fulfills our requirements for notability per the general notability guideline or the notability criteria for acting professionals. Her role on Lalaloopsy is probably the most significant role, but I don't think it would be considered a "significant role" in the absolute sense. In addition, Quick does not appear to have multiple, significant acting roles yet. Coverage of her volunteering efforts, while admirable, appears to be somewhat limited in coverage with the exception of the CBC article, but I just don't think this is sufficient coverage for an article. Are there any other sources on Quick? Otherwise, it might be too soon in her career to have an article. I, JethroBT 19:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2013

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2013-09-23

Your userpage

I Jeth, sorry for pocking my nose, but I was wandering around and don't know how I hit on your userpage, and I read again and I saw this My name is Jethro. It was a nickname given to me by some friends of mine who liked. -- I am racking my brains, is Jethro your name or your nickname? Sorry, you don't have to answer this... I am being too curious. Miss Bono 19:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

No need to apologize-- you ask a fair question. Jethro is not the name I was born with, so it is a nickname. But because many of my friends call me Jethro, it is basically a second name. I do not use my real name on Misplaced Pages, though I imagine if someone wanted to find out what it is, it probably would not be very hard. It's kind of difficult to maintain privacy in that regard these days. Does that answer your question? Also, you can just call me Jethro or Jeth, instead of I Jeth, if you'd like. I, JethroBT 19:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it answers my question. Hehe, maybe I'd start a research to find your real name, I was kidding hehe, but I think I saw it once somewhere, I am not sure. My name isn't hard to find either. By the way, I am going to start watching Star Trek, I guess you'd recommend it :) Miss Bono 20:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
You guess right! Star Trek is wonderful, and I think each series has its own qualities. I, JethroBT 20:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Which one do you recommend first? Miss Bono 20:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Probably Next Gen or TOS to start. Both are classics. It's interesting because they both explore similar philosophical and interpersonal themes, but they are very different in their approach. Also, Picard and Kirk, the captains and lead roles of the two series, are like night and day (by which I mean that they have very different personalities). Feel free to e-mail me if you want to talk more about Star Trek-related stuff, or about episodes as you watch them! I, JethroBT 20:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, I hadn't seen your response before :D. Oh and... thank you so much Jeth, I will email you for sure as soon as I start watching the episodes :D You are cool! Miss Bono 17:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I do have curiosity about Mr. Spock personality. (O_o) Miss Bono 17:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Maître d

Hi, I think I could have a go at being a Teahouse maître d' for a few dates in the near future. What exactly does it involve? Cheers, --LukeSurl 00:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey Luke, thanks for offering-- I thought there'd be nobody at all for October! The basics are described here. But mostly, I try to do some of the following things:
  • Welcome new hosts,
  • Remove new hosts if, based on their contribution history or editing behavior, they're clearly not suited for hosting just now. I usually leave a note on their talk page briefly explaining why, and encourage them to come back when they've had more experience interacting with other editors / working on articles / etc.
  • Check to make sure that hosts are answering questions appropriately and clarify answers if not,
  • Check to make sure hosts have either pinged or left a talkback notice on the editor's talk page to inform them that their question has been answered (some new users may have no idea when to check, or may forget how they got to the teahouse / can't find their question after a few days, etc.).
  • Address conflicts when requested to (e.g. see this as an example).
  • Continue to answer questions from new editors.
Being the maître d' is basically no big deal, but it's definitely helpful to have a set of eyes on these set of matters. I would continue to do it through October, but GLAM and Misplaced Pages Loves Libraries will be keeping me busy enough this coming month. I'll probably pick it up again in November. Anyway, does that answer your question? I, JethroBT 00:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Esper language

Please be patient as I have just spent almost 3 months being homeless thanks to the city of Los Angeles having decided that the apartment I WAS living in didn't exist (at least on paper) even though every other apartment in the building did... so I'm a bit burnt out. I'll get it straightened out the best I can as soon as possible, but it's not going to be easy for me. By the way, I like the way you have set up a link to leave you a message. Perhaps some day I can do something like it. Right now, my computer is over-heating, and my back is killing me from being in an awkward location in order to get online... so all in time. DonaldKronos (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I'm real sorry to hear that, and I appreciate you telling me. I don't know what it's like to be homeless, and I hope things turn around for you real soon. For the time being, though, I'd encourage you to move the article in your sandbox to work on it. I can do this for you if you'd like-- just let me know. Not everyone will be aware of your circumstances, and you'll basically get all the time you need to get the article ready, and I'm concerned that another editor will come around to nominate it for deletion. Keep in mind that one of the big concerns was that I couldn't find any reliable sources discussing the language in-depth. You'll need to find some of these to make a case that the language is notable. I, JethroBT 01:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Need suggestion

Hey hello! Regarding the Gemini article, I got some information about the story of the hooligans on whom the film is based. I intend to add a brief background about them and how the director was inspired by it, each about a paragraph. I am in a dilemma. I don't know under what section heading should I add them so that it doesn't violate Manual of Style and where to put it. Can you suggest me regarding the same? Thanks in advance. -- Sriram 16:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey! That's great material to add. I'd suggest that it go either under its own header "Inspiration" or as a subheader under "Production". Check out Jaws_(film)#Inspirations_and_themes as an example of the former. I, JethroBT 16:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Inspiration sounds good. But in Jaws,it appears after the music section. I don't know where to place it precisely, to improve readability. The narrative should flow seamlessly, one leading to the other. Any idea? -- Sriram 16:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
And I wanna know how much is too much. I got hell a lot of references that I don't know what to add and what to leave. As the GA criteria says, it should not diverge to unwanted details and stay focused on the subject. -- Sriram 16:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
For now, worry less about precise placement and more about actually getting it written. Shifting contents around is easy, but writing is not. I can't really tell you how much is too much without knowing how much is actually written about it, though I won't have much time to devote to the article in the next few weeks. Trust your judgment, and let another editor look it over. I, JethroBT 17:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for that. -- Sriram 17:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for Template:Did_you_know_nominations/IQ_classification suggestion.

Hi, JethroBT, thanks for looking over the DYK nomination for IQ classification and making your helpful suggestion there. I would be glad to go with your idea about the hook. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it already got approved. Also, I'm very impressed with the article-- excellent work. : ) I, JethroBT 19:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:NFCR

When closing a discussion at WP:NFCR, please always substitute {{archive top}}. If it isn't substituted, then the archive bot will mess up the wikicode when the discussion is archived. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Stefan-- I didn't know there was a substantial difference between the two for archiving purposes. I started using substitution, but switched over. I'll be sure to use the former for future closes. Thanks, I, JethroBT 21:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
@Stefan2: I've attempted to fix my closes; things on WP:NFCR look OK at first glance, but let me know if I've unintentionally broken anything along the way. I, JethroBT 21:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
That looks fine. If you use {{archive top}}, then the archive bot changes it to {{tl|archive top}} in the archive, which makes it hard to see the closure rationale. See for example Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review/Archive 29#File:Usain Bolt wins the 100m metres final at the Moscow World Athletics Championships 2013 as lightning flashes over the stadium.jpg for an example of this. You don't need to substitute {{archive bottom}}, only {{archive top}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hey mate! I have opened peer review for Gemini (2002 Tamil film) in an attempt to elevate it to FA class. So, can I request you to leave your comments and suggestions here. Thanks. -- Sriram 16:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Sriram, my apologies, but I don't think I'll have much time to look over new changes and provide another review. I'm currently preparing for my own GAN for Taiko and will be busy doing some work for Misplaced Pages Loves Libraries here in Chicago. I, JethroBT 01:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
No probs. Carry on with your work. I'm good. Thanks anyway. -- Sriram 02:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Abigail's Cross

Hi there, I have reviewed the requirements that wiki sets forth to determine whether a band submission has the appropriate notoriety for creating a wiki page, and I honestly think I can make a strong argument that it indeed does. Can you please take a peek at the talk page for the submission? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azeltroth (talk • contribs) 06:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Roundup closure

First, thanks for taking the time to close the discussion. Those are hard things to do. I want to point out that your point #2 on the "pro" side was "There are some meaningful chemical differences in RoundUp that differentiate it from glyphosate, or". That is true, but it misses the point. Glyphosate is the active ingredient; Roundup is a brand for a line of formulations (glyphosate + other stuff). Here is the problem - there are scads (say 50) commercial formulations of glyphosate, of which there are maybe 5 different ones branded "Roundup". ("Roundup" is not one thing, but a product line, each of which has " meaningful chemical differences" from one another.) And of the say 44 others, there are ones exactly the same as the Roundup-branded ones. Roundup is the most famous for sure, and the anti-GMO people focus on Roundup since it made by Monsanto and was a key in their GMO strategy. But for about a decade already, since glyphosate went off patent ~2000, Roundup has not been unique compared to all the other formulations. So we are going to end up with duplicative material in the glyphosate article, where we cover formulations, and in the Roundup article. Sorry to ask, but do you get that? Thanks. And thanks again, I know it is a lot of work to close. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments-- this was a tough close, for sure. I do understand your point; Roundup is not unique from many other products on the basis of its ingredients. To be fair, this was not really the strongest argument for splitting, but some people argued that glyphosate and Roundup are chemically equivalent (or essentially the same), and thus no split should happen, which was an argument based on a false premise. I only noted it because it was a common theme on the support side. I don't think that simply having a different chemical basis is sufficient by itself for having a separate article, as is the case with many products that redirect to the chemical compound that have little to no independent coverage. That said, in the current case, I don't think it is a substantial problem to summarize some of the content from glyphosate to the new RoundUp article, as it is relevant. We do this all the time and put a "Main Article" hatnote and write a little bit about the topic in summary style for a given header or subheader, and I expect it will be no different for this article. I, JethroBT 00:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, nobody argued that glyphosate and Roundup are the same thing... some of the supporters of the split characterized opponents' arguments that way, but no opponents ever said that. Confusing I know. One of things that makes it hard to work on GMO/Monsanto stuff, is that there is a lot of passion, and unfortunately a lot of misunderstandings, on the part of the anti-GMO crowd. That is a potent combination. In any case I appreciate your responding to me. Have a great day! Jytdog (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I have to disagree-- editors did make statements that were fairly unambiguous on that point:
  • Having a separate article on a specific brand of glyphosate could be seen as...
  • Round-up is just a brand name stuck on glyphosate.
So I disagree that supporters in this case were creating strawmen on that issue. That said, I appreciate the difficulties in POV editing on topics like these, and I learn quite a bit about just from seeing the back-and-forth. Honestly, the editors in this discussion were fairly mild-mannered compared to other RfCs I have closed, though I get that misunderstandings must crop up all the time. I, JethroBT 14:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Great job! I look at things like this and wonder how people like you sort this stuff - it is as if you manifest clarity from a crowd. I care about this issue and it is hard for me to think clearly about how to summarize the consensus. I am happy with what you wrote and I feel like it does reflect what people discussed. Thank you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Bluerasberry. I actually take out a pen and paper and write down notes and do at least two reads of an RfC (unless it's a case of WP:SNOW). On the first pass, I write out summaries of people's arguments, and the second pass, I check them in relation to other arguments and also note policies that are relevant or have been explicitly discussed. I actually find the whole process kind of fun, in part because I like the challenge of having to help resolve legitimate, good-faith conflicts where matters might seem unresolvable. To be fair, sometimes situations cannot be resolved (which is why I'm sure glad no consensus is a valid close). But it does require a bit of time for reading, writing, and thinking. Some have said that closing RfCs is a thankless task, but I actually get thanked much more often than I expected for making closes, even the easy ones. But I get it with the "issues I care about are hard to summarize" in a balanced way. I tend to know when that's the case for me and I either avoid or participate in those discussions instead. Anyway, thanks for dropping a note my way, I really appreciate it. I, JethroBT 15:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Taiko

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Taiko you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ChrisGualtieri -- ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Value Pack 1

Hi! Could you review the article that I wrote for Value Pack 1? It has been reviewed and the sources that I were provided were deemed unreliable by Sulfurboy. Thank you. Malcolmrevere (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I can take a quick look over the source later this evening. I, JethroBT 22:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Closing Hurricane Sandy debate

I thank you for closing that long, drawn out, and somewhat idiotic discussion. I had just checked back to see of an further discussion since my post on Sept. 29 to find that there had been an unnecessary two-day argument over me putting "Option # - per AA, BB, CC, and DD." I couldn't believe that. United States Man (talk) 04:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Believe it. And I've reopened the discussion and reverted the change to the article. Sorry, Jethro, but you don't just pop in and close a discussion an hour and a half after two new editors join. Kafziel 04:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion is really going nowhere. You are the only one arguing, so just give it up. The consensus is clearly against you; no need to keep fighting. United States Man (talk) 04:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I've barely posted on that talk page in the last 24 hours. Plenty of others have, though, including two editors who are new to the discussion who actually had a few things to add. And the consensus isn't "against me"; first of all, it's not my position, and second of all there is not remotely consensus for either side. Unless we're counting votes, which we are not. If you don't want to discuss it, that's fine. But you don't get to shut down everyone else. Don't try to make this personal; I just happen to be the only one on at the moment. Kafziel 04:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion has been ongoing for almost 2 weeks now we have had two separate discussions regarding the matter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Kafziel. I can see why you think my close was wrong/premature, but I'm going to disagree with you. The two newcomers do not really change the consensus-- one of them even favored either Option A or B which is consistent with my assessment of consensus. I disagree that they added any kind of compelling new perspective that would have altered consensus. CrazyC83 noted here the current situation seems fine. There is no official meaning of a "superstorm"..., which is an argument that had already come up very, very early in the discussion from you yourself. I suppose there is an argument for leaving the discussion open longer, but with 12 days of discussion and the present level of participation, I do not think that argument is particularly compelling. You are, of course, welcome to request re-opening the RfC through the proper channels. I, JethroBT 05:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you as well for closing the debate, closing heated debates is not an easy thing to do. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to jump in here, and I really don't care one way or another whether debate stays open, but as this may be relevant, I feel that I should disclose it (as it appears I've indirectly led to this spat): in order to gather more input on the discussion, I notified the relevant meteorological Wikiprojects and top editors to the page (who had not yet commented, and I left out one who explicitly noted that he has retired from Misplaced Pages and is working only on Wikidata now). One of the "two new editors" was someone who I had notified (and is part of the projects). I was unaware that Knowledgekid had asked for a formal RFC closure; had I been aware of this, I would not have posted the notifications; however, since all of that is in the past, I think it is best to disclose this and let you all discuss amongst yourselves whether reopening the RFC is appropriate. Again, I have no dog in the race, and I don't care either way. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I really don't know if this will help anything, but, since I'm apparently one of the "two newcomers" mentioned above, I don't have a problem with the way that the talk discussion in question was very recently closed. Note though that I did not read any of the old discussion above the phrase "POLL regarding mention of 'Superstorm Sandy' nickname in article".
In the future, I wouldn't hesitate to make a plea for comments at the "relevant meteorological Wikiprojects" earlier than what was very recently done. The discussion that took place on that talk page (about what is really a very common way for refering to this hurricane) was probably way too long and might have been brought to a close earlier if some more "experts" (I actually don't believe in experts per se when it comes to meteorology, but it's the best word that I can think of at this late hour) had chimed in sooner. I fear that elevating this kind of discussion further is really just going to cause more drama than anything else. Happy editing... Guy1890 (talk) 07:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Quite honestly, I had just assumed that someone had notified the projects at the beginning of the discussion; had I noticed this omission earlier, I would've posted the notification earlier. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
To be fair, I'm not sure that this "RfC" was formatted as per usual, and I'm not an expert at RfC formatting at all. However, I don't recall ever seeing this discussion showing up here, which is an article alert that I watch routinely. Guy1890 (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

To toss in my two cents.... The result was close to my second choice, and I can live with it. Still, though I can allow that it was done in good faith, I don't at all like the way this closure was handled. I am not a Meteorology Wikiproject member, but I contributed some to this article (mostly editing, cleanup, etc.), including a fair amount to the present discussion. At the very least, I, as well as all others who "!voted", should have been notified that this RfC had been submitted. Also, United States Man, just because you disagree with some of the participants in the discussion does not justify calling it "idiotic". And it is not at all true that Kafziel was the only one in favor of Option F. There were at least two others besides myself. The way this was abruptly ended without most of us being told about what was going on does not sit well with me. It smacks of a secret "back-room deal". That's not the way we are supposed to do things on Misplaced Pages. As a result, there has been considerable confusion (e.g., Inks.LWC acting in his own way since he had no idea of this RfC either). And it looks like it has triggered an edit war on the talk page, to boot. --Alan W (talk) 06:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry folks, I've had a busy weekend, so let me now respond and comment on some of what's been discussed above. Given the current state of the discussion, I still stand by my close, but there are two points that give me some pause. 1) Knowledgekid87 put up a notice on WP:ANRFC without informing the rest of the participants in the discussion. While this is not explicitly required, it is a general courtesy so that others are aware and can agree/disagree with a need to close. Clearly, some felt like the close was somewhat abrupt here. 2) Inks.LWC contacted a number of individuals and Wikiprojects to weight in on the discussion, which conceivably could have shifted consensus, which I was only aware of after my close. Few of those people had a chance to weigh in. None of the options on the table are in conflict with policy or editing guidelines. Given these two points, I think it may be best to reopen the RfC, and will be doing so shortly. I'm sorry if some people want this to be over, but given the circumstances, that doesn't really seem very fair. I will recontact the individuals notified by Inks, and let them know they can still participate in the discussion. Please do not post again at WP:ANRFC without leaving a note at the discussion itself AND please wait until the discussion has clearly died down. If folks would like, someone else can close the discussion this time around; it doesn't matter much to me either way. I, JethroBT 17:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

As stated before, I have no problem with this, so you have no objection from me. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I do appreciate your efforts at being fair, I, JethroBT. And thanks for the notice on my talk page this time. For myself, I wouldn't necessarily argue for a result other than what we got, given the number of participants who strongly supported Option B (so the result, without the boldface, seems a reasonable compromise). But I do believe, still, that a few others involved, who felt more strongly about Option F (or maybe yet another option), had their voices abruptly cut off by the sudden closure and lack of general notice. If the RfC is reopened, I will certainly read it and participate if I feel I have anything more to say. Thanks. --Alan W (talk) 02:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

Rand edit request comment

I think you mean to be commenting on MilesMoney's edit adding "untrained" prior to the protection, but the wording make it seem like you are opposing the edit request from Yworo. Yworo is asking for implementation of the RFC you just closed as consensus, so it's kind of confusing. --RL0919 (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's just the indentation that makes my comment confusing. Miles has fixed this. I, JethroBT 18:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
FYI, User:Orlady made an interesting one word comment on another page. It was WP:DENY. – S. Rich (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of fictional witches may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • *Gertrud ('']''))
  • *] ('']'')

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)