This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

		The Stub Barnstar
		I thereby award you with The Stub Barnstar for expanding Chat flycatcher to a Start-class article. Keep up the good work. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cottus girardi, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Spring and Cottus. 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) 09:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

On 23 January 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Chat flycatcher, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the chat flycatcher (pictured) eats blind snakes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chat flycatcher. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), 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.

 —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 02:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You might want to remove that or find a better example. As I read it, the last round of vandalism went on for two hours before you requested protection, and then the protection was applied 7 minutes after that. ― Mandruss  ☎ 07:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I've added a comment to address this in the original discussion. I would also like to note that I was alerted to the vandalism at around 5:54, and I did not notice any other IPS vandalizing until around 6 o'clock. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 21:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. The discussion has become circular, I think, both sides repeating the same arguments made previously. And only one opposer willing to work toward an acceptable compromise, which, even if acceptable to him, would then be rejected by the rest. This is why I'm out of the discussion, as continuing would only add to the wall of text, which is intimidating to new arrivals and hinders their full understanding of the issue. But I'm not in total despair, as the closing process could still conclude that the supporters have the stronger arguments. That will be interesting to watch. ― Mandruss  ☎ 21:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

		Sunshine!
		Hello Spirit of Eagle! Bananasoldier ( talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst: User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{ User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Bananasoldier ( talk) 06:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

On 10 February 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cottus girardi, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that male and female Potomac sculpins prefer to live in different habitat conditions? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cottus girardi. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), 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.

 —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 01:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Bangladesh–Poland relations. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.— ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Issue has been handled, false alarm. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 20:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi! You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Toth as no consensus. Have you been following the current RfC at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#RFC (quorum)? I suggest that your close while that RfC was still open was inappropriate, and invite you to undo it. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 09:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The RfC is not going to be closed until March, so I do not think it is appropriate to keep it open that long when it has already been relisted twice. I closed the AfD as WP:NPASR, so I invite you to nominate it for deletion again if you think it does not meet notability requirements. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 20:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but why would that be better? Apart from some extra work for a few people, the only substantive difference I can see would be that the useful comment by Tokyogirl79 would not be there. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 00:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:Relist, AfDs are generally only supposed to be relisted twice. If you dislike the outcome, re-nominate the article and address the points made by Tokyogirl179. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 00:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Agar dilution, Spirit of Eagle!

Wikipedia editor Darylgolden just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Good job!

To reply, leave a comment on Darylgolden's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Hi,

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of online chess playing programs as redirect to list of chess software. No dispute from me given the discussion. However, list of chess software appears to be just about chess software rather than programs to play chess online. "Online chess playing programs" isn't actually so clear what that could even mean. Nonetheless, that it's "online" suggests playing chess against a computer via the Internet or playing chess against other humans on the Internet, limiting the possibilities to websites, chess servers, or perhaps the clients one uses to access chess servers. Regardless, none of those are relevant to list of chess software. If we're going to keep the redirect, the closest match is list of Internet chess servers. Unfortunately it looks like it wasn't really discussed in the AfD.

This doesn't seem like a controversial change, and indeed is pretty trivial in the long-run, so I'm a little self-conscious about even bringing it up :) The article creator, IQ125, seems to be upset with me and seems to be edit warring over copy/pasting the list at list of chess software as well as my change in redirect (he/she even filed a very short-lived SPI about me). As his/her only argument thus far has been "that's what consensus was at afd", I'm hoping you, as closer, could help out. See User talk:IQ125. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of voters supported the current redirect position, but you were the last to vote and no debate occurred over the best redirect target. I am therefore unable to tell whether there is a consensus for the current position, or whether its something everyone went with without having a strong opinion about. I would start a discussion on the page you want to re-redirect the article title to and message everyone who voted in the previous AfD since IQ125 had a pretty clear objection to your previous attempt to boldly redirect the article. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 03:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. On one hand, AfD consensus is typically more about merit of arguments rather than majority such that if the majority of people said redirect to list of Disney characters consensus for that wouldn't make sense in the presence of a more logical option. On the other hand, it wasn't quite as obvious as Disney characters, of course, and I didn't leave a message here trying to dissuade you of your close decision. My only point is that if there was a majority opinion to redirect to a particular page, but another more accurate target wasn't brought up until the very end (and no argument against the alternative for that reason), WP:COMMONSENSE does apply. If there's a common sense reason, the fact of the close itself is not a good rationale for reverting. In other words, there should still be a reason to redirect to the other target -- a reason which is supported by the close.

In the second place, it may help if you clarify what "redirect" means vs. "merge". IQ125 has again copy/pasted the whole list into list of chess software. If you don't want to get involved the latter can easily be solved at ANI, it seems. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The afd discussion and consensus were clear. I am following those instructions. It is just the way it is. He keeps reverting the information. Would you please get involved, it is clearly a case of edit war. Thanks IQ125 ( talk) 12:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I redirected the way I did because of both suggested targets were sensible redirects, but the list of chess software had the support of the overwhelming majority of voters. The attempt to re-redirect it was legitimate (at least in my opinion) per WP:Bold. However, it was reverted and is controversial.

The location of the redirect is clearly in dispute, and applying IAR is just going to intensify it without producing any productive results. The best solution is to just follow policy, gauge consensus, have a non-involved editor make the call, and then move on with our lives. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 16:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nocomis platyrhynchus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Substrate. 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) 09:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

On 12 March 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nocomis platyrhynchus, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Nocomis platyrhynchus are brown on top but white on the bottom? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nocomis platyrhynchus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), 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.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

.

Hey, it looks like your AFD script is messing up. Nakon 05:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll go look into it and try to figure out what's been making it malfunction. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

		The Stub Barnstar
		I thereby award you with The Stub Barnstar for expanding Into the Jaws of Death to a Start-class article. Keep up the good work. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

SCP Foundation, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post 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!

Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 16:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The hook in your DYK nomination of SCP Foundation is not acceptable. According to DYK rules, "If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way." It could be changed to something like ... that the SCP Foundation is a website describing a fictional organization which contains and documents thousands of paranormal objects that violate natural law? MANdARAX •  XAЯAbИAM 20:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Whoops. I've edited the hook so it states "...that the SCP Foundation website (logo pictured) contains thousands of containment procedures for paranormal objects?". The hook is now about the real-world website, and the claim that they have containment procedures for thousands of paranormal objects is factually true . Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 01:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That looks better to me. BTW, you're the only person other than myself that I found to use stealthy pings. I like it when a page is not cluttered up with visible pings. You piped me to a period; I usually pipe to the even more stealthy space. MANdARAX •  XAЯAbИAM 02:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Good one! Howicus (Did I mess up?) 00:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Got me! Thank you for that :)

Marcin Łukasz Kiejzik ( talk) 00:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Rules for Fools, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Rules for Fools and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Rules for Fools during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -G.A.WILMBROKE [ USER / ALT / TALK / CONTRIBS ] 00:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

PS you can ignore this. WP:APRILFOOLS and whatnot. -G.A.WILMBROKE [ USER / ALT / TALK / CONTRIBS ] 01:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your ongoing work in relisting AfD discussions, an oft-unnoticed contribution area that helps to keep things running smoothly. North America 1000 09:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I'm always happy to assist the AfD process. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 01:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I see that you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windsor rep acting dynasty‎ as keep. I assume you read and carefully evaluated Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BriceStratford before doing so, but don't you think it would have preferable to wait until the SPI team had time to reach a conclusion on that before making this close? I suggest that you self-revert and allow this to wait until someone much more experienced can close it. Also, since this the second time that I have come here to complain about an incorrect close (see Robert Toth above), may I ask you to consider carefully whether AfD closes is really the best area for your contributions? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 10:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe that my closure was the best option. There were an absolutely abundant number of reliable sources about the acting dynasty, and it clearly meets notability policies (something several other experienced voters also concluded). However, I was not aware that there was a sockpuppet investigation, so I'll relist this since its probably better for an actual admin due to these circumstances. Also, I I'm still unsure why my closure of Robert Toth as No Consnsus and NPASR was so problematic, since it was done according to our policy on relisting. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 20:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Spirit of Eagle, I appreciate it. I blame myself for not having mentioned the SPI on the AfD page; I thought the vote-stacking was so blatantly obvious that there was no need, but clearly I was wrong (and not for the first time, either!). Best regards, Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 21:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Windsor rep acting dynasty. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.— ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: I received this template after relisting an AfD that I had previously closed as keep due to the concerns listed above. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 20:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Just a heads up that I'll be listing this at DRV, I'll ping you when it goes up. I feel it should have been relisted, given that all the non-single-purpose !votes were the same ones that participated in the original nomination. - hahnch e n 19:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

On 12 April 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Thoburnia rhothoeca, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Torrent Suckers have nearly triangular lower lip edges? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thoburnia rhothoeca. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), 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.

Thanks from the DYK project and me Victuallers ( talk) 16:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

3world Kid ( talk) 08:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC) Thank you for your edit. You were quite right. Unfortunately the original articles on the Spanish and German Wikipedias also lack the inline citations. I have now found at least one, if not the only, source article in English translation, which I had cited under 'weblinks' but which is part of a more comprehensive site.

Ok, that's good to hear. Also, an articles sourcing does not actually have to be in English. If there are good quality German or Spanish sources, you should absolutely use them in the article. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 19:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I came up with a way to clean up the article proxy war. You can find my in-progress edit here. What do you think of it so far? Compassionate727 ( talk) 15:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, lets see. Overall, it looks a lot better than the current article. I would rework the first section which focuses on definitions. A definition website is not really the type of source that I would be using for the article. Rather, I would probably use a journal, book or government site. Also, is the definition of proxy war uncertain or is it just that there is debate over which wars can be considered proxy wars (or perhaps a combination of the two). I'd give more detail about any points of debate or conflict that come up when using the phrase.Also, make sure to clarify and cite more controversial claims like "the media generally holds an anti-war view". Overall, this is a good improvement on what we currently have. Work on these issues and keep on expanding it, and it'll likely be a really strong article. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 19:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

First of all, do you have any journals, books or governments sites in mind that define proxy war? As far as why there are so many definitions of proxy war, I'm not really sure. I think that people argue over exactly what constitutes a proxy way, but that's just my guess. I have no experience or evidence to support that. I'll probably have a hard time finding anything that talks about why there's such a debate, but I'll look into it. I'll probably also have a hard time finding something that says the media has an anti-war view, but I'll look into it. (I was primarily citing personal experience when making that claim, and if this wasn't a wiki, I could probably get away with it.) Compassionate727 ( talk) 12:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright, aside from the issue concerning what I base the definition off of, how is it now? Compassionate727 ( talk) 13:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Its looking good, but it could probably be expanded. I would focus on adding some more abstract descriptions of proxy wars in, since most of your article consists of real world examples. I would, for example, describe why proxy wars are fought, the impact of proxy wars and give more attention to their role in international politics. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 17:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

How's it now? Compassionate727 ( talk) 16:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Very good, this is a massive improvement over what is currently in the proxy war article. Make sure everything is sourced and check for tone, but once this is done I think it should be added to the proxy war article. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 18:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'll check into my sources to see if they're actually relevant. Wierd things happen when you start with a statement and then try to find an article that says it. I was also curious about whether or not the use of news articles was a problem? Compassionate727 ( talk) 01:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

News articles are fine so long as they directly address the topic of the article. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 01:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Went ahead and threw it in. It'll be interesting to see if an antivandalism bot undoes it. Compassionate727 ( talk) 12:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	For your effort in finding sources for the Lyle Stevik article. I wanted to show my sincere appreciation, regardless on how the AfD turns out. -- GouramiWatcher (?) 15:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'm glad I could help with sourcing. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 03:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of SCP Foundation 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! OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Found CC licensed photos for Cottus girardi and Nocomis platyrhynchus. As far as I can tell a free photo of Milan C. Miskovsky cannot be found. I searched Google, Bing, and any databases I could find so the fair use photo present will have to do. -- KWWight ( talk) 22:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, please let me know if there's any images you need tracked down, I enjoy a good scavenger hunt -- KWWight ( talk) 04:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Found this after having one last look for a photo of Milan Miskovsky ( http://www.ebay.com/itm/BS-PHOTO-hdb-474-Milan-C-Miskovsky-Director-of-Investigation-Presidential-Commis-/201276806147?nma=true&si=Br9gpl4P6598WXegIK7tRyas8J4%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557), it's a 1967 AP wirephoto i'm not sure of it's copyright status however. But perhaps your a bit more familiar with copyright law than myself. -- KWWight ( talk) 06:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the image still appears to have a copyright on it since it was published after 1923 and appears to be published with a notice. According to this page, its copyright isn’t scheduled to expire for several decades. Thanks for searching though. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 01:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

On 12 May 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article SCP Foundation, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the fictional SCP Foundation (logo pictured) contains and documents thousands of paranormal objects? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/SCP Foundation. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 18:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I need more time to work on the page, didn't realise it was live! If you delete it, can I put it back when it's complete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by REACC ( talk • contribs) 04:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the speedy deletion template and moved your article to Draft:Royal East Auckland Curry Club. You can continue to edit it and move it into the mainspace once its more comprehensive. If you want to leave an article in the main space, make sure that it has some sources and that the article gives enough information so a reader knows what the subject of the article is . Otherwise, it stands a good chance of being nominated for deletion. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

On 17 May 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Percina roanoka, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Roanoke darter is in no danger of mysteriously disappearing from its habitat? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Percina roanoka. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), 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.

Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 12:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Lythrurus alegnotus at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see 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) 22:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pantacles of Athens discussion has closed as a consensus "merge." The closing admin, SamWalton, identified four of the 40 articles for further talk page discussion whether they should be merged to the list or maintained as stand-alone articles: Talk:Dandes of Argos, Talk:Philinus of Cos (athlete), Talk:Oebotas of Dyme and Talk:Eurybus of Athens. Your input is requested on those article talk pages. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 20:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Heyo! Thanks for closing the AfD. I had a question in my mind about that page for long and since you edit it, I wanted to ask you that. I have fixed countless typos here to say and so have most of the active users. If only two or more editors keep a log of it, what is the use of having it as a subpage of the WikiProject? Regards, —  Yash!  ^(Y) 07:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I've personally been adding my spell-checks to the page since its there and because the wikiproject page encourages it. Its not the most essential subpage in the project, but I think the page acts as a nice showcase for the work performed by the wikiproject. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 01:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)