User talk:Britishfinance/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Medtronic

I appreciate what you're trying to get at with the 'Global listing' but I'm not sure it belongs directly in the Medtronic article itself, I think it would be more suited to either a subsection of List of largest pharmaceutical companies by revenue or its own article, most likely the former of those two. I'll leave it for now, but I will move it in the coming days if it's still there. XyZAn (talk) 10:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Question about the page for Dhammika Dharmapala

Dear Britishfinance, Thank you for creating this Wikipedia page - I appreciate your work on tax havens and related topics. However, I wanted to raise an issue regarding this page. It includes three citations to newspaper articles (footnotes 1, 2 and 3) about a crime in which the subject was the victim. This crime is of no relevance to the theme of the article, and publicizing it widely may create a safety and security issue for the subject. In addition, some of the inferences about birthplace, birthdate and other matters made from these newspaper articles are incorrect. Can I ask that you edit the page (very slightly) to delete footnotes 1, 2 and 3 and the inferences (birthplace, birth year etc.) that rely on these sources? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharmap1 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dharmap1, thank you for logging on to WP as a user (and welcome). I had responded to your earlier edits when you were using an IP-account on the Talk Page of the relevant article to help you (here [1]). WP is a strange place initially, on one hand being very open (e.g. anybody can edit), but on the other hand, it has rules/guidelines and editors/systems monitoring adherence (e.g. edits that conflict with the rules are reverted). However, what runs through all of WP is the principle of consensus, and the Talk Pages are how consensus is established (and later enforced, if needed). Without consensus, an article can become unstable, and current/future editors could revert changes in a manner that you may not agree with. There are two actions that I would suggest regarding your concerns:
* The article in question comes under a "biography of living people" (called a BLP), for which the main guidelines are listed in WP:BLP. Certainly, the hate crime carried out on the subject is not the purpose of the article, and the subject is not notable (in WP terms) in their capacity as the victim of a hate crime. The case could certainly be made on the Talk Page of the article for the sentence discussing this hate crime to be removed, probably under WP:AVOIDVICTIM.
* The issue with the footnotes, however, is that they provide core biographical data (e.g. date of birth, place of birth, citizenship and full name), from good secondary sources (e.g. established newspapers), who are reporting on the court events surrounding the hate crime (e.g. the journalists are sourcing from a robust process), and are spread over several years (e.g. again, probability of a single incorrect newspaper article is diminished). These sources appear in any basic google search of the BLP subject and are in the public domain (and the footnotes used are only a selection of articles available). It would, therefore, be very unlikely that these facts could be removed by consensus without any other data showing that these facts are wrong? You have two options here:
1. Provide an alternative good quality publically available source for these details regarding the subject; or
2. Contact the Volunteer Response Team, who could verify your details and situation, and make a ruling if needed (which would be printed onto the Talk Page).
I hope this makes sense, but happy to help/respond if you want to discuss further. Also, I have moved this to the Talk Page of the article which I think is the best location for this issue to be discussed, and will allow other editors to contribute.Britishfinance (talk) 10:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Forgive me jumping in here. Britishfinance, I assume you reviewed the other editor's user talk page, including this message they left? I also recommended they contact VRT in response to that. —C.Fred (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that C.Fred, hadn't seen that. On reflection, I do think that the VRT is probably the best way to resolve this as Dharmap1 will struggle to achieve what they are trying to do (e.g. delete legitimate public references on basic BLP data), without being able to disclose their details to VRT and then proving the data is incorrect, or making the case that using the public references would place the subject of the BLP in harms way. Either way, it would produce a more stable solution. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Dear Britishfinance - Thank you very much for your response. I have posted an explanation of the problem on the article's talk page in an effort to build consensus around these changes. I will also contact the VRT. As you seem pessimistic about making the edits successfully, are you open to deleting the page altogether? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharmap1 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
My pleasure Dharmap1. That is the best way forward - Talk Page discussion and VRT. I think you would struggle to achieve your aims regarding deleting the footnotes on the Talk Page, and I think you would need VRT intervention to do this (e.g. they could verify your details and rule that the articles were incorrect and thus should be removed from the article, without requiring an alternative source). I think VRT is the only way in which you could get the article deleted but it would be a very unusual move – especially given the subject is a very public figure (university website, quoted in the wall street journal, and who even has their own Google knowledge search box); however, if there are particular circumstances as to why the existence of a WP page could cause harm to the subject, than that might be reviewed. Kind regards, Britishfinance (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Teahouse logo

Hi Britishfinance! You created a thread called Infobox for Scenic Points at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


economic-incentives.blogspot.ie

Hi. I can see that you have utilised that blog at the domain economic-incentives.blogspot.ie frequently in the past year. If you have a relationship with that blog, it would be useful for that declaration to be made on your user page. We like to know where someone has a vested interest in the urls being utilised. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Billinghurst:, fair question but I have no link, direct or indirect, with the Irish author of this blog. I did contact the author directly by WP email (as Britishfinance) to get his consent to clarify copyright on specific graphics I wanted to use via Wikicommons but he would not engage (I had to source the Eurostat reports he used so that I could recreate them myself). In contrast, another blog I also cite is by U.S. author Brad Setser, who when contacted changed the copyright on several graphics to cc-by sa 2.0 on his blog for me. The blog itself is a good one to use on Irish tax and economic issues as it focused on analysis and factual information vs. opinion, and the author is well regarded, being Chairman of the Irish State's independent statutory body that oversees the accounts and spending of the Irish Government (the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council). Given my referencing of the blog, I decided a few days ago to start a WP:BLP stub on the author, Seamus Coffey. Hope that makes sense but happy to answer any follow-up questions or other concerns you might have on this.Britishfinance (talk) 08:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt answer, and thanks for clarifying the matter, it is appreciated. I will make a note against the use of that blog. We apologise for the interruption and now return you to normal programming. :-) — billinghurst sDrewth 09:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
My pleasure! thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 10:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Britishfinance, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing!  Swarm  {talk}  01:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Swarm: Thanks and much appreciated! Britishfinance (talk) 10:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Salvio giuliano: Thank you and much appreciated for that!

Rollback granted

Hi Britishfinance. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing!  Swarm  {talk}  21:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Swarm: Thank you so much for that! Britishfinance (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Emerald

Thanks for the undo. This is part of a long-standing hoax by Freecomwireless. It also shows up on other gemstone pages. Meters (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Meters: My pleasure. I think it would be worth noting this on the Emerald talk page? I can see that there was a discussion on ANI on 17 December 2018 on this and you had some very helpful information on this bizarre editor? It would help other pending changes reviewers? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 08:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Britishfinance. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Minor user rights can now be accorded on a time limited or probationary period, so do check back at WP:PERM/NPR in case this concerns your application. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encylopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

  • Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance. so that they are aware.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
  • If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Salvio giuliano: Much appreciated and thank you! Britishfinance (talk) 12:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019

Information icon I noticed that a message you recently left to 86.134.44.150 may have been unduly harsh. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. If you see others making a common mistake, consider politely pointing out what they did wrong and showing them how to correct it. It takes more time, but it helps us retain new editors. Specifically, level 4 and 4im warnings should only be used for obvious vandalism. Thank you. Kranix (talk | contribs) 17:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The warning was made for a deliberate and knowingly inaccurate piece of vandalism. Such a newcomer doesn't need to be treated with kid gloves. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@Roxy the dog:Unless you know the editor in question personally or placing false Morrisey articles is a common vandalism pattern, I'd be wary of any categoric judgements. The worst thing that can happen by assuming good faith is someone giving another warning for the next disruptive edit, and we don't risk scaring anyone away. Kranix (talk | contribs) 18:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@Kranix:. I hear what you are saying but this user's IP had an edit from 2014 [2] (and a detailed one with a properly constructed reference, which means they have another account), and if you see the edit they made today, it was not designed to anything other than sneakily input false information? I see lots of potential vandalism on the "pending changes" list but I usually label it as a "typo" to give the user the benefit of the doubt for the reasons you note (you can check my edits over the last few days). However, when something is this deliberate from someone who knows how to edit, I do think it merits a stronger response - it seemed obvious vandalism to me? However, perhaps I am wrong and should have given a less harsh warning? Sorry if that was the case.

Britishfinance (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Many people have dynamic IP's, the static ones are often reassigned within a few years, and several people may be editing in one household. So my guess is that the edit in 2014 and the one in 2019 were made by different people. In general, I'd recommend starting with level 1 unless it's obvious vandalism or the user has made several disruptive edits within the past week or so. Thanks for helping out with RC patrol! Kranix (talk | contribs) 18:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Remember that IPs are not always used by the same people. A single edit in 2014 tells us little, if anything, about the user who made the recent edit.
That said, it's a judgment call on warning level. I'd have only given a level 1 warning on that, unless I'd seen other IPs making the same edit recently, to where it was part of a pattern. Even then, I'd put something like "changing your IP address will not let you evade scrutiny" in the warning, so other editors as well as the IP know the reason for the escalated warning. Now, if the vandalism had been particularly obscene, such as a racial slur, then I'd have gone straight to level 4 with a message like "those sort of attacks are not acceptable on Wikipedia". And I'll start with a level 2 warning, or follow level 1 with level 3, all depending on circumstances. (Some times I don't even warn a vandal IP at all, if it's a one-off thing: they might just be trying to cause trouble to get attention, so why give them what they want?)
So—speaking only for myself—thank you for fixing the vandalism and for leaving the warning message. I appreciate you helping out with that often thankless task. Please view the suggestions here as ways to make your good contributions to the project even better. —C.Fred (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@Kranix: Fair point on the dynamic IP issue - I didn't think of that. However, given the edit, which seemed pretty unambiguous in its objective, would you still have just started with level 1? I started doing "pending changes" in the last few days and have had to have one IP user blocked for a year (User:76.231.64.214, who had left a trail of destruction), and another exposed as a sockpuppet (User:Streaky Porky Bacon). It is pretty incredible to see the level of vandalism that goes on, and these are the protected pages? That was why I decided to use a level 4 warning against this IP editor. However, I am still learning here and you will see from my "pending changes" edits, that I only resort to templating on pretty rare occasions. thanks again. Britishfinance (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't know exactly - I don't do much vandal-fighting these days, and I'm far from an expert. I guess you could use a level 2 if you wanted to, but these judgements really come from experience and listening to any advice you get along the way, as you are. Nice to have you on board! Kranix (talk | contribs) 18:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@C.Fred: Thanks also for that feedback C.Fred (I think you posted before I answered Kranix). I will take your comments on board. Kind regards. Britishfinance (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I was getting a little upset at the bad vibes going in BF's direction here, and came back to say I don't think they did anything contrary to Policy and Guideline at all. I was once hauled up before the beak at a Dramah board for doing nothing wrong like this. My response was to ask critics to examine my edits carefully please, and walk away, as there was no case to answer. I dont do barnstars, but if I did I'd award an anti-vandal one. I prefer using a crowbar of understanding, carefully applied. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I do apologize if any bad vibes came across - my advice certainly wasn't meant so. I'll probably leave a more personal message next time. Kranix (talk | contribs) 16:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@Roxy the dog: I appreciate your sentiments. In fairness, I think there is no "schoolbook solution" here and my solution was probably at the outer end of the scale, however the sneakiness of the vandalism made me go to def-con 1. The answer was probably in the middle. However, now that I have taken on more rights, it gets me more engaged in the wider WP community (my innocence is gone!), and discussions like the one above are very welcome, from all of you. My sense is that WP at its core is a "second chances" location (i.e. the Parable of the Prodigal Son), which is noble - perhaps, even vandals can convert to good editors? thanks again. Britishfinance (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Certainly! We've even had at least one admin whose first edit was a very ugly piece of vandalism. Kranix (talk | contribs) 16:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@Kranix: Very funny! All the best. Britishfinance (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

no signature?

Hi, there seems to be something wrong with the warning templates you used here [3], for some reason huggle decided to issue a level 1 warning rather than going to the next level, and it may be because of the missing signature, but not sure. Agent00x (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Agent00x: Hi, and will add the signature! thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Surreal Barnstar
I love the images you've uploaded. Outstanding! the eloquent peasant (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
@Level C: That is so kind - thank you!. Britishfinance (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia article

What do I need to add to the Wikipedia article? More references? More information?More of both? I currently do not have an appropriate picture to put on as it will be against copyright laws. If you want me to add more information, I do not have a birthday, but I think I will be able to add some more information if you give me a week. Kathleenreandeau (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I have answered this on your talk page instead. Kind regards. Britishfinance (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve Eugene Lee Yang

Hi, thank you so much for suggestions on edits, and thank you for your kind words on the structure of the page. Rereading it now, it really does need to improve in tone, as well as it needs pruning on some of the fan-like statements. I already have some ideas in mind, but I'll be more than happy to hear your ideas that would help improve its quality.Verbosmithie (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Verbosmithie: The subject is interesting, however, social media BLPs are not universally popular on WP! I would reduce the size of this article (classic social media BLPs are always very long as therefore come across as promotional pieces), and just keep the sentences that say what he did and what he said (but only if what he said and did was picked up from a good quality third party source). The best BLP articles have lots of sentences with the format "On 5 January 2018, Mr X was quoted by the (notable newspaper) as saying "xxxx". On the 20 January 2019, the (notable newspaper) said that Mr X did ABC". That is what a BLP is - a chronology (but not in a list format) of things actually said and done by good quality third-party sources. When you have that, your article will become very stable (e.g. people will stop re-editing it because you now have the facts), and the notability of the subject will be obvious (or not). hope that helps. Britishfinance (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

4th Wish 107.5 Music Awards

Hi, I saw that you have deleted the article 4th Wish 107.5 Music Awards. I don't understand the reason why you consider that the subject is not important enough. The event is a Philippine music awards ceremony produced by Wish 107.5 FM, and it is to be held tomorrow January 15th, 2019.[1] It may not be as big (yet) as the Grammys or MTV Video Awards since it is only around for 4 years, but this is a showcase of Filipino music. For it to be deleted in a snap when I tried to create it for days seems harsh. I started to be active here in Wikipedia just a few months ago, so I do not know where I went wrong. Pardon my innocence. elivic (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)elivic

Hi @Elivic:. You need to clearly notability (and referencing the notability from a high-quality third-party source - e.g. major newspaper). The bar for this is not easy, and WP is wary of commercial events trying to abuse it. What I would do is read the WP notability guidelines for an event fully and if you meet them, create a smaller article that just describes the event and establishes notability. If that is accepted, then you can add the rest of the content later. You key issue is to prove, using high-quality third party sources, that this meets WP:NOTABILITY for events. hope that helps. Britishfinance (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Britishfinance, thank you for the quick response! The event is not commercial in any way, and in fact it is a charity event because the awards winners donate a certain amount to their chosen charity via the event.[2] Unfortunately, Philippine media does not acknowledge charitable works, so it is very unGoogleable except for UNTV News and Rescue (its sister station), even if you try.
@Elivic: If it doesn't appear on google or major newspapers, then it, unfortunately, is very unlikely going to meet WP notability.Britishfinance (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Britishfinance, would you give another chance if I provide multiple links now? elivic (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)elivic
  1. ^ "4th Wish 107.5 Music Awards' Performers: Danish Pop-Soul Act Lukas Graham, Diverse OPM Line-Up". Wish 107.5 FM. January 7, 2019. Retrieved January 14, 2019.
  2. ^ "Charity Wins at the Wish 107.5 Music Awards". Wish 107.5 FM. December 27, 2018. Retrieved January 14, 2019.

Reliable sources added to film article

The reliable sources for the film article of The Passion According to Andrei appear to justify it as a separate article. The two films were released as separate dvds with separate titles and separate chapter heading added throughout the film. These two films are treated as two separate films by the editorial board for The Criterion Collection, and they have been released by them under separate dvd titles. The reliable sources which I have added include this one [4], and many others exist, including the discussion of Martin Scorsese who apparently took great risks and efforts to get the 1966 film out of Russia into the USA, since many copies of the 1969 film already existed. If you have a reliable source article indicating that the editorial board of The Criterion Collection have committed a copyright violation against the laws of either the USA or Britain then please let me know by suitable discussion on the Talk page with your reliable sources against the editorial board of The Criterion Collection or similar cites. The article is restored based on The Criterion Collection reliable source being added as a reliable source to the article. CodexJustin (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@CodexJustin: The problem is that the article is screening on the WP page curation process as being a near duplicate of the other large article, which is a problem. Instead of duplication of the other article, reduce your article down in size (just put links to the bigger article under various sections that are duplicate) to focus on the specific parts of your article that are different (or else, add your article as a section under the other article). Otherwise, it will have to be redirected again. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I have considered that very seriously. One difficulty is that the single article version, if left as a single article at Wikipedia, is that there are many errors in it because it confuses the two versions of the film. This has caused ambiguous editing to the film article over time since most Wikipedia editors do not know the details of the two separate films as well as Martin Scorsese. By separating these two films, it has made it easier for other editors to start to weed out the ambiguities inherent in the editing. When the two articles go through an enjambment into a single article, then editors seem to force edits into the article based on their own preferences. (You can see the fine job done by editor Vlad to this effect of resolving ambiguities in the recent edit history, after the two film articles were separated). By separating the articles, even with the similarities, it allows other editors to put their edits into the correct article for the current film, and not to place them into the incorrect film because of there not being a separate article for each of the two separate films. If you have such edits in mind for you to help improve either one or both of these articles it would be nice for you to add them into the article and help to clear up this long standing issue of ambiguities in editing concerning the two separate films. CodexJustin (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Declined A9

I notice that you tagged the page Buy Muy Drugs for speedy deletion with the reason "A9". While that's a valid reason for speedy deletion in general, this page does not qualify for speedy deletion under that criterion because it is only for articles on musical recordings where none of the contributing recording artists has an article, and an article on Denmark Vessey exists. If you still want the page to be deleted, please consider tagging it with a speedy deletion template which does apply, redirecting it to another page, proposing the page for deletion if it appears to be an uncontroversial matter, or taking the page to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for discussion on the merits. Thanks! Appable (talk | contribs) 20:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Appable: My mistake, you are right. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
By the way, I wouldn't oppose a PROD and I agree it doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC. Just doesn't quite meet the speedy deletion threshold. Appable (talk | contribs) 20:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
@Appable: Thanks again, I have put it up for PROD as I just can't find anything supporting notability - I think it is worth testing as the article is hanging down the page patrol queue. Britishfinance (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Cornelia Maria Catharina Andreoli

The procedure for pages where the only problem is that they are in a foreign language is to list them at WP:PNT, not to tag for speedy deletion as a test page. In this case there was a valid speedy deletion reason, WP:A7, but you have chosen to remove this from the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: Ah, I see what you were doing now; no problem with that, either way I think it is a CSD case and we just need to clean it efficiently. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 10:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I've moved the article back to draft - it has no place in en.wiki but possibly the author was intending to create it for Dutch wikipedia? PamD 10:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@PamD: See the article talk page, that was what the author was trying to do. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 10:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah yes, I must remember to check talk pages more often before leaping in with edits! Hope I haven't messed things up, just didn't want to see their work vanish in a puff of CSD smoke before they could copy it into a sensible place. Mind you there's presumably COI, from the username, and I'm not sure she's of anything beyond family-history interest, but I don't read Dutch. PamD 11:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Exactly @PamD:, I think @Phil Bridger:, you and I have all given enough time to this article! thanks again. Britishfinance (talk) 11:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Question about personal website and info box

Hi I saw that you reverted this addition:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phil_Pringle&type=revision&diff=877806269&oldid=877793781

It looks like that is a relevant website of his. It probably makes more sense than the EL to the C3 church.

What's the rule about info box personal websites?

Thanks for your help. peterl (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Peter: The website link was fine but another part of the edit was leaving a typo on the book reference; put back in the website edit, and re-do the book reference but make sure that it does not appear "red" on the page (e.g. an error in how the book reference was formed - particularly the ISBN code). There was nothing wrong with the substance of your edits, just the spelling of the second one. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
It wasn't my edit, it was someone else. I was just watching the page. Instead of just blindly reverting the edit, removing a valid and useful link in the process, it may have been more helpful for you to have fixed the mistake. peterl (talk) 03:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@Peter: what an insensitive comment to make. Britishfinance (talk) 10:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Looks like the "pending changes" were one good edit and one bad - baby got thrown out with bathwater. PamD 10:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Pam. peterl (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Unreviewed article

Hi, I received a message saying you unreviewed an article I curated yet the message was a compliment on the quality of the article? Was this an error or did you actually have a reason to unreview? Kosack (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kosack: Definitely an error if it just happened in the last 60 mins. I was probably editing it before hitting the button, but you may have done so before me! sorry for that. kind regards. Britishfinance (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
No worries. Kosack (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Pbsouthwood. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Demand Valve Oxygen Therapy, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 14:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Good spot on the reference. The issue was my familiarity with this therapy (unfortunately), which made me happy it was notable, and thus I spent most of my time adding tags, categories, and some formatting to get it to a proper stub that could be passed. However, good outcome and very nice update you have done. thanks. Britishfinance (talk)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm UnitedStatesian. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Junglee (2019 film), and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

thanks, I had marked it for CSD and was confident it would meet the criteria. appreciate help however! Britishfinance (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

2016 Auckland local board elections

Wtf? I was going to expand the article like I said, then you came along to move the page into draftspace along with 2019 Wellington local elections. You are a pathetic little sick bastard. Sheldybett (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Sheldybett: No need for abusive language: please apologise to Britishfinance. And I'm not sure that the {{under construction}} tag can be expected to protect the article beyond about a week - I note that it was added on 3 January, so it was pretty stale.
On the other hand, Britishfinance, I agree that neither article should have been draftified: both have a good solid source, both are the kind of articles we expect to see routinely in the enyclopedia, not about an unknown musician or a political controversy, nothing problematic. The editor seems to be a NZ election enthusiast, judging by their contributions list, and knows what they are doing. Just add a {{refimprove}} tag and move on to worrying about the serious rubbish in the WP:NPP stream. I've moved both articles out of draftspace, stub-sorted them, done a little tidying up. PamD 08:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@PamD: The articles I draftified had two lines, no sourcing/referencing (not even an external link) and had been left idle in the mainspace. Doesn't matter who the editor is, it is not personal, they should not be on the mainspace. Others would opt for the CSD process (which would be reasonable), but I assume good faith and draftified to allow the editor at least bring the article to a something that could be accepted. Please don't try and justify poor editing by this author, and their poor behavior. Britishfinance (talk) 08:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
50-50: The Auckland article had a source when draftified, though I agree the Wellington one was pretty rubbishy, hadn't noticed that it only got sourced in draftspace. PamD 08:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
And I'm not sure which CSD process you think might have applied to elections? PamD 08:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I am reviewing stubs every day and fixing/bring them up to a basic standard that they can be accepted as decent quality stubs. Here is someone who did not give a toss about even creating a basic stub on WP, and his response above underlines his respect for WP. Trying to justify or compartmentalize such behavior as any way acceptable is a poor approach on your behalf. There are millions of things to be done in the bottomless ocean that is WP, defending and then tidying up the actions of characters like this is a poor use of your time on WP in my view. It definitely is a poor use of my time. Britishfinance (talk) 08:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hyatt Regency Tokyo requiring sources and citations

Regarding the article you have moved to draftspace, Hyatt Regency Tokyo, what if it was a translation of the Japanese article? The Japanese version didn't have any citations as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JollyTile (talk • contribs) 12:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

JollyTile, add a reference and at least it can become a stub. Britishfinance (talk) 13:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Sabana Abajo

Hi, Did you see any reason to unpatroll Sabana Abajo as it is a acceptable WP:GEOLAND stub. FitIndia Talk 16:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Fitindia: Not at all, it was a mistake on my part (was testing another older version of NPP patroller), should be patrolled again now. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Madison Reed, Britishfinance.

Barkeep49 has gone over this page again and marked it as unpatrolled. Their note is:

Current practice is to not mark as reviewed speedy nominations. This is a procedural unreview in light of my removing the speedy tag,

Please contact Barkeep49 for any further query. Thanks.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Understand Barkeep49, and thanks. Thinking of putting this through AfD as I am guessing that it is going to end up being tested there anyway? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I had deleted per g11 a previous version of this article and had been advising its author on recreation after being asked for help. It has some real coverage from the NYT, but I think it's definitely borderline and so AfD might be the right way to settle. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, okay let's do that, I will put it up as a borderline case and see what the consensus is. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Admiralty F.C.

Hi there,

I noticed you reviewed my latest page, Admiralty F.C. (Papua New Guinea) and tagged it with fansite and tone. I've been methodically updating and creating several Papua New Guinea club pages, including F.C. Morobe Wawens, Petro Souths F.C., Toti City Dwellers F.C. and Hekari United, and many more (see my userpage). Could you tell me exactly it was about this page that is poor in tone and reads like a fansite? And I'll strive to avoid this in future. Thanks. MrMarkBGregory (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi MrMarkBGregory. Try and avoid sentences like "side showed a level of resilience throughout the season". Unless you are quoting a source saying it (and it was important that the quote was added), avoid adding your own words to sentences. Also, there is a lot of information/extra detail in the history section that is not needed for a WP article the club. If I, as a dispassionate editor was doing this section, I could reduce this to circa 5-8 bullets (in chronological order) of the major events a casual reader would want to know about the club (each taking no more then two lines). In that way, a casual reader can see the key points easily (but a fan might want more detail). Ultimately, 90% of WP writing is a pretty dry tone (mostly, on X they did Y, as referenced by Z etc. / or according to notable A, they said B was C). Hope that makes sense. Keep up the good work! Britishfinance (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
It does. Thanks for the feedback and your honesty. KUTGW yourself! MrMarkBGregory (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Clarification

Hello! Seems like Twinkle sent you the notification for the deletion because it considers you as the creator of Conspiracy Series by Shane Dawson since you have the first edit per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conspiracy_Series_by_Shane_Dawson&action=history. So you do kind of have something to do with this article, but you are not the creator. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Jovanmilic97. Absolutely not. I was patrolling the page per NPP, deleting the junk references, and about to move to draftify (although I was considering deletion too) when my session crashed. When I logged back on, I was getting messages as the creator as part of an AfD process. Don't know what happened there? Britishfinance (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, seems like a bug on Wikipedia? It is odd that you are the first listed on the page history. Since the true article's creator keeps avoiding AfC and CSD R2 like a plague, then I had to open AfD to shut this whole mess down. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Jovanmilic97. I know that situation well. Pity that there is not a stronger firewall back to mainspace once an article has been draftified. AfD is, unfortunately, the only way to definitively resolve these things. cheers Britishfinance (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

piranha

Hi dude, I just edit IP and can you let me know why Piranha plant was redirected — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.145.253.94 (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I have started Talk:List_of_recurring_Mario_franchise_enemies#Piranha_plant_split? to get discussion from Mario editors about whether to split it off. —C.Fred (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi there. Not fully sure what happened there. The Piranha plant WP article appeared on the queue of new pages for patrolling, but as a page made year ago - probably due to someone removing a re-direct and reviving an older article that was previously blanked. I edited the lede on this article to make sure that it was clear it was a fictional computer game character - and not a real plant - and then passed it as a standalone article. Does that make sense? Kind reagards. Britishfinance (talk) 08:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Matampay United Football Club

Hi Britishfinance,

I received your review about Matampay Unite Football Club and I'd like to answer your question.

The club known in Mindanao since 2002 and made a notable works and inspiration to the athletic Maranaos in war-torn Marawi City in the Philippines. It was labelled locally in Marawi City that the club produce rebels which is false rumors. The reason I wrote down on Wikipedia is to note here that the club is professional football club and never inspiring young men to terror ideologies. It working to develop sportsmanship among the Maranaos I am searching for other citations.

Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dehgel (talk • contribs) 03:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dehgel. the problem is that your article was appearing as a professional football team and therefore was getting screened against WP:NSPORTS or WP:FOOTYN which it failed. Seems like a wonderful club and cause, however, I don't think it will meet WP's criteria as a football team. You should try a different approach. For example, under the WP article for Maranaos article (or other relevant existing WP article), you could put a separate sub-section on the work being done, quoting good quality sources to show that this work is notable (as a humanitarian act). Does that make sense? Britishfinance (talk) 09:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

RE: Pages reviewed

Thanks for your reviews. You have motivated me to continue creating articles hahaha. Greetings. Tajotep (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

you are welcome :) Britishfinance (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:List of StudioCanal theatrical animated features

do you want to help with Draft:List of StudioCanal theatrical animated features Fanoflionking 12:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of BlackBelt (3D printer)

It looks like you deleted this page. I'm not sure how to deal with this. I commented on this on the draft talk page, but there has been no reply so far. DirkvdM (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi @DirkvdM: Sorry about that. I can’t remember the specifics of your article but new WP articles for new/live products must - amongst other things - prove notability AND not be strongly promotional (we get lots of these, essentially marketing brochures pasted into WP with a few internet links pasted at the bottom as reference). However, there are loads of product articles on WP (e.g whole Cannon camera series), but the notability of Cannon is accepted (it has its own WP article), AND the individual camera model articles are written in an encyclopedic style. I would check them out. Hope this helps. Britishfinance (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Well of course it's not encyclopedic yet. It's a draft. I read an article about it (in a major source in this field) wanted to look it up here, found nothing and used the article to make a start. What's wrong with that?
As for it being (strongly) promotional, I work for a competitor. But I just think it's a cool concept, as apparently does the writer of the article.
Well, you removed it, so I suppose you can put it back. I don't care enough to be bothered about it anymore. But what does bother me is that you removed it without any discussion on the talk page. That's just plain rude. DirkvdM (talk) 08:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi @DirkvdM:. As I said above, I did not delete your article, an administrator did under WP:CSD. You yourself state that it was not encyclopedic at that point?? You can use the sandbox or AFC for such articles. Once an article appears in the main space, it must meet basic WP criteria. Even then, an article can be challenged under WP:AFD which does involve a deeper discussion and a final administrator decision. Britishfinance (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
No, you did not mention that you didn't remove it. And yes, strictly speaking, apparently you didn't. You moved it to Draft. Same diff, as far as I can tell. Ah, never mind. DirkvdM (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Featherfoil

Hi, a note on Featherfoil: that appears to have been intended as a disambiguation page, in which case it would not have required sourcing. In point of fact, it works better as a redirect to the genus page (these are the only two species in the genus). In any case, not really an instance where draftification was required :) Just FYI, and keep up the good work :) Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Good idea and thanks! kind regards, Britishfinance (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Laurie Berman article

I'm allowed to copy article from the site is because it's a public domain, I'm not saying the article is mine and I made sure I put {{PD-notice}}. I don't know if you saw that or not.

Dillon251992 (talk) 00:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Dillon251992. Yes, I only say the public domain tag after I had ran the copyvio scan; after which, I then reverted the CSD tag. sorry about that! Britishfinance (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Page Mover granted

Hello, Britishfinance. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! TheSandDoctor Talk 05:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Need help in np review

hi i need your help in reviewing Prasanth Mambully. last day you have made an minor edit in that page. please check back and review the page so other editors may come to do edits in the article. Vijesh sreenivasan (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 March 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
  • As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Sunday Times and The Irish Times have mentioned you

Sunday Times Irish Times The upshot seems to be that they think you must be a paid editor since you contributes so much. So are you a paid editor? If you wish to comment for a story in WP:Signpost please email me directly. I'll likely check the history at WP:COIN in a few hours and may comment or ask questions over there. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Oh wow, I am just seeing this. Definitely not a paid editor. Am knowledgeable in UK and Irish tax and came to WP to fix some tax-related articles that I felt were poor (plus I had a work break). Caught the bug and found myself writing WP articles on all kinds of subjects, and getting involved in NPPR and AfD etc. Ended up having to re-write a lot of my earlier tax-related articles when I (finally) realized how to properly write a WP article (took me circa. 6 months to write decent material). My Leprechaun economics re-write was referenced by nobel prize winner Paul Krugman on his twitter feed (a major high point). Plus, my re-write of Double Irish arrangement was recommended by the US Council on Foreign Relations as the "best source" on the topic (another high point). Not keen on the exposure of these newspaper articles (not a high point). Have returned to full-time work and have less WP time (plus, had a rough experience on AfD that dampened my WP enthusiasm). No problem answering any WP:COIN questions. It is not a process I am familiar with, but as long as my privacy is maintained, I will be as transparent as possible. Britishfinance (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
@Smallbones: Ironically because I was just cleaning up my user pages before retiring, I had listed almost all the WP articles I have written which might be helpful. This list does not include articles that I was not the main editor on, or some earlier articles that I think need to be re-written to bring to a decent WP standard; one of which I am trying to re-write in my sandbox now before retiring (I am trying to do at least one WP article that uses the full Harvard-citation type structure before retiring). kind regards. Britishfinance (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry if I have to get up to speed on this. One mistake I made was thinking that Paddy Cosgrave worked with IDA. Do you know how he is involved in this? But I guess the key part of the Sunday Times article is:
(Banned editor Kevin) Sammon said: “Wikipedia enables people to edit articles anonymously so there is no way to know who or what is behind Britishfinance. It seems clear that only a well-resourced professional entity would be capable of making this number of edits over such a period. From analysis of the edits, it is clear that this person or persons do not have an interest in presenting Ireland’s economic model in a positive light. They have gone to extraordinary lengths to create and link Ireland and its stakeholders to negative stories, particularly on economics, tax and Brexit.”
I'd love to get your reaction to that. If you'd prefer to email me (off-the-record for now) that would be fine (until I say "we'll be on the record from here on out"). As with any Wikipedian I would never out your real world identity, but refer to you by your user name. Like I said I'd love to get your reaction to the above paragraph. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
@Smallbones: I am happy to do this on my talk page for now. I believe Paddy Cosgrove tweeted a reference to several WP articles, including QIAIFs and Martin Shanahan in a series of tweets on his twitter page [5] [6]. I created the QIAIF article but not the Martin Shanahan article. Shanahan is the CEO of the IDA and when I came across it I discovered that it read like it was written by a UDP/COI editor. As I began to remove the WP:PROMO element of the Shanahan article I was reverted by a series of new/IP editors. Eventually, they revealed themselves to be the same source – the marketing department of the IDA, which is led by Kevin Sammon. Sammon made some unpleasant personal attacks on me on the Shanahan talk page which were false. Sammon confused WP with a brochure rather than an encyclopedia. I decided to leave the Shanahan article and have not returned to it since. I have not encountered Sammon/IDA marketing department since. This is a hobby, and I am not interested in being on WP for conflict or edit warring. Britishfinance (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the feedback. The next thing I'll try to figure out is whether Shanahan just doesn't know that Wikipedia is not an advertising site, or whether he thinks it doesn't matter - that he'll never get caught, or that he is now completely reformed, or ... Thanks again. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Britishfinance, I would like to congratulate you for your hard work and brilliant edits to finance related articles, esp. Base erosion and profit shifting and Double Irish arrangement. Several months ago, I took a course in tax law and I found these articles surprisingly well-written in a detailed and balanced manner, and in a refreshingly neutral tone compared to the moralistic and critical tone taken by authors (often affiliated with think-tanks) from other countries in the EU. (talk page stalker) — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington: Thank you. It is really very kind of you to say that! Unfortunately, these newspaper articles have revived the "Irish tax trolls", and a whole series of Irish tax-related articles have been vandalized/PROD'ed for deletion today, including the Double Irish arrangement. It is a losing battle I'm afraid, and I am not sure that other WP editors understand these articles and are afraid to template vandalism. However, your kind comments are much appreciated. Kind regards. Britishfinance (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, I've also noticed your editing because I thought it was particularly good – but about hills and mountains rather than finance. Not much money to be made in writing about hills (in my experience!). But maybe it's all a fiendish plot. Best wishes and good luck.Thincat (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I think someone should mention this assessment to the attack editor(s) of today - indeed, while one can draw some tough conclusions from some of the articles, anyone who thinks these are hard on Ireland has never read certain Irish commentators, never mind some very angry and bitter ones from France, Germany, etc. I agree re. the professional tone and academic approach.SeoR (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words Thincat. There is even less money for writing about finance on WP! I haven't seen a single bad/aggressive edit on tax-related articles on any other content but Ireland-related content (and I have over-hauled the main Tax haven and Tax inversion WP articles). Your comments are much appreciated however. Kind regards, Britishfinance (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

New River, Arizona

Hello Britishfinance, I am responding to reversions to the "New River, Arizona" wiki page. A group of neighbors have asked me to perform revisions, which will also include updates to facts, historical information, etc. and gathering necessary information requires my neighbor's inputs. For a brief amount of time, we expect the page to be incomplete until this information is updated and added.

As the recent "incorporation effort" was just shut down by the City of Phoenix and State of Arizona yesterday, my neighbors wanted, actually demanded, an immediate revision to the New River page to remove any information about the recent incorporation effort. I am dismayed to see that you, whom does not seem to have any stake in our small community, continue to revise the page for our community.

The statement that you will have the page locked is concerning as I do not see how you would have authority or ownership over our community, and we wish to retain authorship and editorial rights over information concerning our community. I respectfully ask that you divest yourself as an editor of our wiki. If you were granted authority by someone to do so, I would appreciate the contact name(s) of the person(s) that gave you this authority.

Please validate your authority to revise anything we, the residents of New River, choose to post about our home. As of this moment, I do not expect any further revisions from you regarding New River, Arizona. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nowayjoseaz (talk • contribs) 22:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nowayjoseaz ... in my opinion this is not the way to go about addressing your concerns, especially as you may seem to have a WP:COI. I perhaps suggest raising at WP:TEAHOUSE to get neutral advice and entering discussions on the article talk page. ThankyouDjm-leighpark (talk) 02:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Djm-leighpark. I agree and share your views on this. Am going to copy this to the Talk Page of the New River, Arizona article and reply from there. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 09:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Closed "Is There Any Legitimacy to Gab's "Free Speech" Claim?"

long discussion

First let me state up front I don't object to the section being closed. It's been open a long time, and at some point you have to call it. However having said that I am compelled to note that the question was never answered directly by anyone. Zero opinions, lots of distracting and off-topic chatter, but the fundamental question persists. Is there any legitimacy to Gab's claim of free speech, or not? What's the next step? How does an Editor that wants to assert the idea that there is some legitimacy to Gab's claim of Free Speech, but is up against a group of Editors that refuse to engage on that question. The question was intended to provoke discussion and arrive at consensus, and now that it is closed, the same group of Editors that refused to engage will now claim that consensus was achieved when the section asking the question was closed. What's the solution? I would be satisified if the Editors that make a routine practice of shading all Gab's statements listed in the RS as "claims", and all corporate or political organization's statements as "accepted facts" would simply spell that out as some kind of over-arching policy, instead of squashing discussion on a case-by-case basis every time someone is at variance with this unofficial, unstated and unenunciated policy. I don't see resolution here, and I'm wondering 1) If you do, and 2) What that resolution might be. This is coming on the heels of another, unrelated situation I read about at the Administrator's Noticeboard, where one Editor refused to engage with others, and that lack of engagement was one of the negatives listed when making an overall assessment and decision by the Administrator(s). I also don't understand why some Administrator doesn't step in and start laying down clear guidelines, etc... because what I see is a catfight with little to no regard to Wikipedia Policy. With regard to Wikipedia being a "mainstream encyclopeida", sure, but in other articles, dissenting perspectives are listed, at least a general outline of counter-arguments are made, minority opinions, etc... They get a little "controversy" section, or whatever. I see zero desire on the part of the more experienced Editors working on that Article to do anything like that, despite a continuous stream of complaints of "bias", etc... from IP Editors and inexperienced Editors with accounts. One Editor has been banned from Wikipedia after attempting to edit this Article, another was threatened into removing themself from the Article, I've been given a good hazing for my attempts at trying to "do something" (pretty much anything), and the dynamic continues unchecked.Tym Whittier (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tym Whittier: The issue is that Gab's mission, according to a lot of Tier 1 RS is not a noble one. Even when the FT article (as I posted on the Talk Page), covers its mission, it heavily qualifies itself (e.g. Nonetheless, much horror still lurks on Dissenter — including hateful and anti-Semitic opinions that need challenging). There has already been a lot of discussion on the Talk Page about the subject, and imho, the article is true and reflective of the main RS on the subject. Britishfinance (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. My initial response is "What could be more "noble" than 1st Amendment Free Speech rights?". But that's not my "developing Wikipedia Editor response. That's the one I decided was a "bad idea". I assume your use of the word "noble" is more "term of art" (meaning pertaining to Wikipedia) than "personal opinon". I've read (what seems to me to be) a lot of stuff on Wikipeida (policies, guidelines, essays, etc...) and have never seen this quality of "noble purpose" used before. I'm trying to learn. If it's your opinion, I'd rather avoid discussion, because opinions vary from Editor-to-Editor, and my primary purpose is to become a more-procient Editor. However if there's some Wikipedia-based reasons why you use that term, I'm very interested to learn. Also I don't dispute the fact that virtually all of the RS is negative and condemnatory of Gab (or Dissenter), however there are glimpses of a commentariat in the RS that is at least willing to ask the question fairly in the title, even if the entire body of the Article is condemnatory, such as the cite you provided today. On a personal note, I recommend you watch the 5 episodes of the made-for-TV show "Chernobyl", if you have not already done so, and I'll explain why if you ask. Thanks again for your response, and (hopefully) willing to expand my Wikipedia education.Tym Whittier (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@Tym Whittier: Oddly, Chernobyl is top of my list now that I am coming to the end of Billions (also recommended). WP is a pleasure to use when just doing the obvious - summarizing reliable independent sources. All of the issues/conflict/angst stems from not wanting to do the obvious. Drawing out nuanced conclusions (that aren't obvious in RS), or conclusions that aren't really there. WP is not about free speech etc. (although it is a very open platform), it is about summarizing the obvious. I recommend you spend a few weeks at WP:AfD. It is instructive to see articles that people fought long and hard over 5 years ago, get deleted without any fuss today. Generally, with time, the obvious becomes even more obvious. Things are were nuanced, become obvious. It is a great lesson in avoiding wasting time on anything that is not obvious. Long-term, only the obvious survives on WP. Britishfinance (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I know that Wikipedia is not about "free speech", however I believe Gab is. I also like Billions. Except for the stupid episode where they were boxing. Favorite Character: Taylor Mason. I'll keep your "obvious is obvious" statment in mind.Tym Whittier (talk) 02:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Warning

You've violated WP:3RR by reverting four different editors at BitChute. Please self-revert. wumbolo ^^^ 22:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd really advise against any reversion. [7] shows the current version is the same as 27 May which to all intents and purposes is the same reverted to by Wumbolo at 26 may. It also is the same at that supported by Ponyo and seems to be that essentially supported by the talk discussion. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Djm-leighpark, that was my intention. I also suspected that two of the IPs where the same editor (used the same language of "framing" in their edit summary) here [8] and here [9]. However Wumbolo, if you feel strongly about it, please do revert me and I will leave it. thanks. 10:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019 Sharad Pawar

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Sharad Pawar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You have now reverted other editors over 3 times, including reverting edits where the other editors accepted your suggestions and accordingly improved the content. You need to discuss any concerns you have on the Talk Page of the article and get consensus from other editors on your views. Otherwise you will be blocked from editing on this page PJ1729 (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

An occasional outcome of supporting WP:AIV work on WP. The new editor above was pasting in Facebook, Youtube and Quora references (although using full WP-standard citation format) to an Indian political BLP here (despite it being their second ever edit on WP).Britishfinance (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Leprechaun economics

Paul Krugman just included a link to Leprechaun economics in a tweet on @paulkrugman [10]. I can retire happy now! Britishfinance (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Well done! You brought, in what, under 18 months?, a (badly-needed) whole new level of professional attention to a set of articles in the finance space, and it is a pity that WP loses you back to Real Life, but hopefully not for long. For now, a mention from Saint Paul Krugman is a good note on which to rest, indeed!79.104.6.204 (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks so much. Britishfinance (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Question re L-QIAIF

Hi British Finance - regarding the relationship between S110 and L-QIAIFs and these sentences: "In June 2018, the Central Bank of Ireland reported that €55 billion of U.S.-owned distressed Irish assets, equivalent to almost 25% of Irish GNI*, moved out of Section 110 SPVs.[2][3][36] The L-QIAIF, and the ICAV wrapper, in particular, is expected to become an important structure for managing Irish tax on Irish assets in a confidential manner.[c][37]" Is there an assertion that "vulture funds" are moving from using 110 to L-QIAIFs, and is there data to support this? Central Bank doesn't appear to have data about this, so wondering how else this can be documented. NotCynyster (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

NotCynyster. There is a quarterly CBI document that is not published in the public domain but is circulated outside the CBI and can be obtained. It cannot be used as a WP:V source in WP. This report does show the funds moving from Section 110 to QIAIFs and L-QIAIFs (doesn't split them apart, but QIAIFs are not suitable for S110 assets). I suspect Fianna Fail had been given a copy of it, and hence their assertion in the SBP article (which we can reference in WP). Anybody working in Irish corporate tax has a least one client who moved their S110 to an L-QIAIF; and they all did it at the same time. Britishfinance (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Turned out to be another IDA Ireland WP:SOCK
Thank you for this. I have lots more (relatively technical) questions. Is there a chance we could connect? Via NotCynyster@protonmail.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.66.78 (talk) 11:03, 22 May 2019 213.86.66.78 (UTC)
I'm watching BF's talk page at the moment and given scrutiny and privacy issues may suggest this is done on WP. I also note the above comment was not signed risking imposterment.11:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC) (Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC))
Hi NotCynyster (assuming that it was your IP above). Unfortunately, I am not happy to discuss via email given the off-wiki attention I have attracted. I am happy to respond to questions on the Talk Page of these articles (it might help other editors as well). If you have generic questions, ask them here, HOWEVER, given the off-wiki attention, I may not respond to them all (to protect my own privacy). Hope you understand. Britishfinance (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi again - ok. I understand. Trying to hone in on the numbers and the non-public Central Bank report. The L-QIAIF section point about the €55bn refers to several articles, [1][2] The Irish Times article seems to refer to this statistical release by the Central bank <Ref.https://www.centralbank.ie/docs/default-source/statistics/data-and-analysis/other-financial-sector-statistics/financial-vehicle-corporations/2018q1-irish-special-purpose-entities.pdf?sfvrsn=2</ref> which does not mention "US owned distressed Irish assets", but to "a small number of non-securitisation (other) SPEs no longer availing of taxation provisions under Section 110" at the same time as saying that there was a decline in Russian sponsored SPEs. The SBP article too appears to make reference to this - or rather to it via a letter written by Stephen Donnelly TD to Minister Donohoe referring to the L-QIAIFs as a 'new nirvana'. Donnelly's letter says it is his 'understanding' that a substantial portion of the *may have been moved to other tax-free vehicles including L-QIAIFs, but doesn't make any reference to Central Bank documentation underlying this. So basically trying to find out more details about the unpublished Central Bank report in your answer.

  • Due to not signing (again) and risk of other disruptive behaviour and not listening to BF's reply I've issued a level 3 warning on this IP's talk page. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks Djm-leighpark. Seems like the trolls are back again, and this time, unable (or unwilling) to read my answers or the references. Britishfinance (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for not knowing exactly how to use the 'talk' page and the conventions on how to sign off/sign, but I do object to being called a troll. I am not. I asked genuine questions, based on reviewing primary material and interviewing primary sources which led me to believe that I needed to review/query/understand better some of the elements which you have written about in greater detail. So it is unfortunate that I am being discouraged to ask questions, or query anything in this context. I would have thought that is exactly what Wikipedia is for. I understand that there are sensitivities, but it is disappointing to be branded a troll for asking questions. NotCynyster (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC) NotCynyster

  1. ^ Mark Paul (28 June 2018). "Tax-free funds once favoured by 'vultures' fall €55bn: Regulator attributes decline to the decision of funds to exit their so-called 'section 110 status'". Irish Times. Retrieved 26 April 2019. Regulator attributes decline to the decision of funds to exit their so-called 'section 110 status'
  2. ^ Jack Horgan-Jones (29 July 2018). "Vulture funds in new move to slash tax bills and escape regulation". Sunday Business Post. Retrieved 26 April 2019. Fianna Fáil claims that funds have discovered a "new nirvana". Documents also reveal new strategy to avoid regulation. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Extinction Symbol

Britishfinance: I tried to post this on the talk page, but it now appears locked. Someone who was asked to leave Extinction Rebellion (not by me) due to abusive conduct is going around trying to discredit the symbol and XR in general. This has been going on for months on various private XR forums. It's known who they are. They've got a range of apparent grudges involving the group finances and other things, but one of the other things they're doing is trying to make untrue claims about who the symbol creator is. They keep changing Wikipedia as well as sending weird hectoring and accusatory emails to people, emailing companies with vaguely similar logos and falsely posing as a representative of XR or the symbol project and trying to get into discussions with them about legal matters, etc. Just basically trying to cause trouble for the symbol project and XR generally. None of which is wanted. They seem to have become obsessed with the symbol because they seem to think that it was copied from ancient symbols and that either the creator of the symbol or XR are in a secret plot to somehow eventually gain financially from it, which couldn't be further from the truth. The person making these edits also has an objection to the conditions attached to the symbol of non-commercial use only. This arose because they wanted to make products with it on and were told this wasn't possible, which angered them.

When the the symbol was first created it was cross-promoted on the 'Xylo' website (as well as elsewhere), as a way to publicise it. A couple of street art fan blog posts from many years ago incorrectly linked the two projects, probably because no information was given at the time about the creator of the symbol. The person who keeps editing the article is merely reposting incorrect and unverified information. They've been told this via email by various people involved, including the people who made the original posts, yet still they persist. It wasn't the 'artist's signature' as claimed in these latest false revisions, or copied from ancient symbols or anything else. It's just a stylised hourglass and circle (planet), as stated on the official symbol website (which has existed since 2011). There are also other reasons why this person's actions are deliberately compromising other people's security, but I'm reluctant to publicly state them here. If you would like to contact the email address on the official symbol website then we can go into much more detail. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.118.26 (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@150.143.118.26: Thanks for that. As I said, on WP we handle extremely controversial content and media and are have tools to handle such situations. Where things go wrong it where editors get shock/frustrated by an edit and want to fix it straight-away, and thus become part of the "edit war". Trust the system and just post your concerns on the Talk Page (several of us are now watching this talk page) and it will be addressed. In a few days time the Talk Page will be unlocked again and open to normal editing. By then I should have helped further improve the referencing in this article. It would be great if you have any more sources (per WP:RS) that might help the artilce; just past the URLs onto the talk page and I can assess from there and add as required. We can't use blogs etc, but articles like The Guardian source are very welcome in Wikipedia (or any other source that is notable enough to have a WP article itself is a rough guide). Hope that makes sense. If you have any issues, just leave a note here on my Talk Page, and I will see it. Thanks. (note - every time you publish something in WP, make sure to add four "~" symbols after the last full stop as your signature). Britishfinance (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
As this refers to me, please allow me to address it.
Firstly, you're using "IP editors" in a derrogatory manner so as to suggest they are unrelaible, of a lower status, or whatever. That's just not correct according to policy.
Try "editing while logged out", as Goldfrog23/ESP appears to be using the 150.143.***.*** IPs.
Secondly, I've never been a member of Extinction Rebellion, nor have I been asked to asked to leave. This is a complete fabrication on their behalf.
Simple fact is, XYLO is currently remarketing themselves as Goldfrog ESP and promoting their work as that is reasonable to document where the referenes exist.
Lastly, as written, the problem The Guardian article it is in essence, the artist and editor quoting an article where they themselves have been quoted, as are other, therefore we have a distinct feedback loop going on, that is a fairly unique problem that most certain strays into WP:COI.
The Hastings Independent Press is actually a real world newspaper and not just a blog.
Thank you --82.132.213.209 (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
There is nothing "derogatory" about being an IP editor and nothing in my comments that imply that it is a "derogatory" term.
On WP we ignore statements about editors backgrounds etc.; it doesn't mean anything on WP which is anonymous; you (or 150.143.118.26) could be anybody.
What we do care about is summarising reliable independent secondary sources (per WP:RS) on topics; that is the main focus.
Several RS attribute the creator of the symbol as ESP (or Goldfrog ESP), and so we state that in the article (although we note that there is still uncertainty).
I have not read anything about XYLO in the RS, and therefore there is no mention of XYLO in the article? What XYLO tries to do outside of WP in claiming that they are ESP (or Goldfrog ESP) is irrelevant to WP, unless an RS reports on it. I could claim that I am ESP but that will also be ignored by WP (unless an RS reports on it).
The Guardian is a Tier 1 RS on WP. They are not fools and understand the issues of COI/WP:PRIMARY report (their article is not a COI issue). They have also spoken with other artists who have views on this (e.g. Charlie Waterhouse - who Quartz report as saying that he explicitly met the artist), so they are not reporting from a position of ignorance (which The Guardian do not do). Trying to degrade The Guardian's article in such a manner makes me suspicious that you have an agenda here.
I do feel that 150.143.118.26 / Goldfrog23 probably has a WP:COI issue regarding editing this article which I will tag; do you also have a COI here? For that reason, I have completely re-written the article and gone through all the source myself (and added more sources). Editors with COI are advised not to edit their WP articles directly.
Hastings Independent Press is not a Tier 1 RS on WP and is not on this list Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (I am not even sure it is an RS suitable for WP). I have no idea what Hastings is saying that conflicts with what The Guardian is saying regarding ESP – can you explain this issue?
Hope that helps. Britishfinance (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Britishfinance, the person was indeed removed from XR, and proof can be provided of this. Their attempts to out people are a violation of privacy and Wikipedia policy, and also endangers individual's personal security, but I suspect that's their motive at this point. They appear to want to conflate other artistic projects which no longer exist, but the fact is that the artist who created the symbol is known as ESP, and always has been since the extinction symbol was created. I just noticed they've also edited the main Extinction Rebellion Wikipedia page to remove the picture of the symbol, as well as to remove the words 'Extinction Symbol' and also remove the link to it which was on there. Which is unwarranted, because Extinction Rebellion have stated on many occasions that they're using the extinction symbol. These kind of edits give you an idea of where this person is coming from and their agenda against the symbol. I feel because of this that their edits should be removed from that page too, but perhaps someone else should do it, to avoid me ending up in another edit war with them.150.143.118.26 (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

P.S...the 'Hastings Independent Press' article mentioned above appears to have relied for it's sources on an earlier incorrect version of the extinction symbol wikipedia page, which in turn relied on a couple of very old blog posts based on supposition. The 'Hastings Independent Press' made no attempt to verify their sources with the artist or Extinction Rebellion. For someone to try to say this is credible information is pretty desperate stuff. I would respectfully suggest they take a deep breath and move on with their lives, because surely there must be better things to do that to harass people who are trying to build a movement to stop the extinction crisis.150.143.118.26 (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@150.143.118.26: I am going to re-post your comment above to the Talk Page of the article (which is not locked); we can continue the discussion there. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
The Hastings newspaper recorded the creation of the symbol in 2011 by the artist then named Xylo, as is recorded elsewhere (try Googling "Xylo extinction symbol" if there is any doubt and let's put this nonsense to bed for once and for all).
As indeed it was on the Goldfrog ESP Flickr URL which I removed (it is in the URL again). No, I am not suggesting that is useful; yes, I am aware that would be WP:OR; I merely reference it for the sakes of background discussion here, noting that the Flickr gallery has been edited out since these matters arose.
I think we have a problem with circular sourcing given the artist is using a Guardian article to substaniate themselves, that quotes a blog (Ecohustler), that is quoting the artist publicizing themselves. Is Ecohustler even WP:RS? There would appear to be no independent verification and not everything in The Guardian meets WP:RS.
I could suggest for you to save time and energy by just asking them yourself, eg whether they are the artist and whether they were previously known as Xylo, but I think at this point it's blatantly obvious.
Therefore please replace the WP:COI tag and warn the artist off editing their own topic. Thank you. --82.132.222.213 (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I have pasted this onto the article Talk Page, lets move ALL future replies to that place. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Britishfinance, can you please email at the address at the bottom of the offical www.extinctionsymbol.info website? There are important legal matters relating to all of this that can't be discussed on an open forum like this. The person who keeps posting all of this stuff is endangering people's security, and allowing them to continue doing so either here or on the talk page isn't acceptable. Thanks.150.143.118.26 (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

So tell me BF, why would 150.143.118.26 be asking you to email the address at the bottom of the offical www.extinctionsymbol.info website, as Goldfrog did to someone else earlier, if there was not a COI?
I'm going to say this and then leave it, and this does belongs on your talk page rather than the topic talk, the way you came into this matter and handled it, made it all much worse and consume far more resources, than it needed to be.
Let's get this all into proportion. Address the editor's COI, then move on. Everything else is just a distraction from that.
Start from first principles, or ab initio, and bear in mind the motivations behind the actions. --82.132.222.213 (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @82.132.222.213: You are fooling no one now. As shown on the Talk Page, I have demonstrated you have a COI issue in trying to delete high-quality references to ESP (or ESP Goldfrog) as the likely creator of the Extinction Symbol, to replace with junk references that XYLO (i.e. likely you) as being the creator. Your fall back on being exposed was that ESP and XYLO are the same artist, and should both be attributed, which of course no RS asserts. The article has zero COI as I have completely re-written it (and fixed all references). Britishfinance (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
If you only knew how demented this was. XYLO will be laughing their head off at it but it has served their purpose.
(See below, and stick to subject matter you know about). --82.132.215.61 (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't care who XYLO is (and they have zero mention in any reliable RS). You, and your various 182.132* range of IP accounts, were exposed on the Extinction symbol Talk Page as trying to use a Wikipedia article to falsely promote XYLO as the artist who created the Extinction symbol. Everything else is irrelevant. Britishfinance (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Like I wrote in the first place, XYLO and Goldfrog ESP are the same person. It's not a fall back position.
You see, right there where you are digging your heels in over it, that's the tendency you need to examine.
Try checking the xylo.me website with archive.org, from about 2011. Or just ask them here. --82.132.215.61 (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • This is getting hilarious now. So after deleting quality references to "ESP"/"ESP Goldfrog" on the article (like The Guardian as you did here, to replace with poor references to XYLO, you now, because the weight of RS proves that ESP/ESP Goldfrog created the Extinction Symbol (including a formal clarification by Gail Bradbrook of Extinction Rebellion here), want to create a fall-back story that ESP is XYLO. There is not a single WP-standard RS that states that ESP is XYLO (I can't even find an independent blog saying this). But instead, you direct me to XYLO's own website as proof ?!?! Seriously. It just getting surreal now. Britishfinance (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • BritishFinance: Thanks for all of the work you've done to entirely rewrite this article from a neutral point of view, and based on high quality reliable sources. I'm sorry that you've had to deal with all of the unpleasantness directed toward you from a certain individual. Their irrational and malicious campaign against XR and the symbol is quite worrying to be honest. Some people in XR have even started to have concerns for their personal safety due to the obsessive nature of this person.
Regarding the thing Jason Kottke raises, that's a known issue, but nobody in XR has the time or means to verify where the fundraising money would be going. Under the traditional model he advocates anybody at all could put products online and claim it's for fundraising. XR are trying to move away from the culture of mass production, toward a localised handcrafted community approach. People get their existing garments printed for free at XR events, and local groups are starting to get their own block printing kits now, so that's the true economy of scale, where once you've carved a woodblock or had it 3D printed or whatever then everything you make from that point onward is free.
Anyway, here's a couple more links of you need them. Cheers! Litro Creative Review 146.198.183.4 (talk) 10:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks 146.198.183.4. I do a reasonable amount of WP:AIV work (which is what brought me to this article), and "stabilizing" articles is part of what I do. Hopefully the article is in better shape now. Very interesting topic. Point noted re Kottke; he is a notable figure in WP so his comments are worth inserting, if other notable people or outlets discuss this, we will insert as well. Regarding your two links, I have the latter in as Creative Review is a good WP:RS (it is used 4 times in the article). The first "Litro" article is also interesting, but I would need to check up on whether it meets the WP:RS standard. thanks again. Britishfinance (talk) 10:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Another interesting link here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-wiltshire-49116196/giant-crop-circle-near-womad-highlights-climate-change 150.143.118.106 (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Mentions the symbol creator again here: https://rebellion.earth/2019/07/29/monday-29-july-giant-extinction-symbols-appear-around-the-world/ 146.198.183.30 (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually, PK Read is a notable journalist who has written for the main Huffington Post site, so I can use her Litro article. Britishfinance (talk) 10:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Actually, BF, if you paid closer attention you'd see that that particular Guardian reference is redundant as all it basically does is quote the Ecohustler blog and the artists own site.
Are you sure Ecohustler meets WP:RS?
--82.132.230.49 (talk) 04:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Another attempt (over 20 now), to fake attribution to XYLO, the east end lad called Dave (per Talk Page), trying to fool tourists that he created the Extinction Symbol.
As well as WP:ICANTHEARYOU, we have another term for tendentious editing on Wikipedia; it is called sealioning.

Looks good

We'll be editing the submission over the next week, but it looks good. Thanks. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Good to hear, thanks for that. Britishfinance (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm assisting with the issue (pls reply to Bri if necessary). You can find your draft now at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Community view - Bri.public (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bri and thanks for that - will keep an eye on it and try to handle any questions/comments raised. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Is this similar to the Facebook advert you mentioned in the article? ☆ Bri (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes Bri. This is the source Irish Tax Agency. According to one Irish newspaper, here, he spent Euro 20,000 on his campaign? Britishfinance (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
This Bloomberg article has more discussion about his campaign (and of course, IDA Ireland's unfair accusation of my "44,000 edits to Irish tax articles" ??). Britishfinance (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I was trying to verify the link in this, but couldn't "and tried to hire additional meatpuppets from Irish Wikipedians to "build a case" against me (see here);they failed." "Hire" means cash in this case. Can you show me the sentence with the offer? Otherwise looks good Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
@Smallbones:. The link was lost when they archived that post on the WikiProject Ireland page. I have fixed the link now, and changed the word to "recruit" from "hire". The link is to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Archive 18#Statement, where I provide the two diffs of their attempt of meatpuppetry with two specific editors, and obviously, their whole post at WikiProject is an attempt to recruit other Irish wikipedian's to their agenda; which none did. Hope that makes sense. Britishfinance (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Smallbones On a separate matter, will you be able to update the Signpost article on the "constitutional crisis" for the Buzzfeed News article [11]. I think it is a very decent article which wider Wikipedians, who have not been following the Fram affair, will be interested in? I can see that it sparked off another separate issue when Katherine Maher made some unhelpful tweets about the story? Britishfinance (talk) 09:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Your input is requested

at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Community view before Friday.

Only 100 or so words. It should be fun and serious at the same time.

All the best,

Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

New message from Dmehus

Hello, Britishfinance. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 January 20.
Message added 20:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Noticed an interesting proposal at TfD re: deleting {{R from meme}} for redirects, and thought you'd be interested in that discussion, particularly since your and my recent editing involvement in one of the largest current Internet memes, Megxit. Doug Mehus T·C 20:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello Britishfinance,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources
Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo for Zero Hedge.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo for Zero Hedge.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe these pages need to be merged

--Htmlzycq (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Htmlzycq, I am not a chemistry literate person so could not really guide you on that? Have you asked at the WikiProject Chemistry? Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks.--Htmlzycq (talk) 07:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

A graph showing the number of articles in the page curation feed from 12/21/18 - 12/20/19

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days
Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 Rosguill (talk) 47,395 Patrol Page Curation
2 Onel5969 (talk) 41,883 Patrol Page Curation
3 JTtheOG (talk) 11,493 Patrol Page Curation
4 Arthistorian1977 (talk) 5,562 Patrol Page Curation
5 DannyS712 (talk) 4,866 Patrol Page Curation
6 CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) 3,995 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 3,812 Patrol Page Curation
8 Boleyn (talk) 3,655 Patrol Page Curation
9 Ymblanter (talk) 3,553 Patrol Page Curation
10 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 3,522 Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nadia Marcinko, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Britishfinance (talk) 10:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!
Britishfinance,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

   – 2020 is a leap year – news article.
   – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

– Utopes (talk) 04:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for that Utopes - and best regards to you. Kind regards, Britishfinance (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Close

wondering if you can close this per WP:SKCRIT Lightburst (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ailladie

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ailladie 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 Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ailladie

The article Ailladie you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Ailladie for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mount Brandon

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mount Brandon 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 Yakikaki -- Yakikaki (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Twelve Bens

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Twelve Bens 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 Editoneer -- Editoneer (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Twelve Bens

Hello! Your submission of Twelve Bens 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! David Eppstein (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of FIFA Champions Badge

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article FIFA Champions Badge 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 MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 09:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of FIFA Champions Badge

The article FIFA Champions Badge you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:FIFA Champions Badge for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations

Hello! Your submission of Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations 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! Kosack (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 March 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ben Lugmore

The article Ben Lugmore you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Ben Lugmore for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ben Lugmore

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ben Lugmore 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of MacGillycuddy's Reeks

The article MacGillycuddy's Reeks you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:MacGillycuddy's Reeks for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 02:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Luggala

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Luggala 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of MacGillycuddy's Reeks

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article MacGillycuddy's Reeks 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 Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Luggala

The article Luggala you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Luggala for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mangerton Mountain

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mangerton Mountain 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mangerton Mountain

The article Mangerton Mountain you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Mangerton Mountain for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 09:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Carrauntoohil

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Carrauntoohil 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Carrauntoohil

The article Carrauntoohil you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Carrauntoohil for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Galtymore

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Galtymore 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Galtymore

The article Galtymore you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Galtymore for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 09:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Philip Treacy

The article Philip Treacy you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Philip Treacy for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Philip Treacy

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Philip Treacy 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Disease X

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Disease X 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 DannyS712 -- DannyS712 (talk) 03:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Disease X

The article Disease X you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Disease X for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DannyS712 -- DannyS712 (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Mount Brandon

Hello! Your submission of Mount Brandon 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! Yoninah (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Remaining Donald hill articles

Hi Britishfinance,

I am a new (very new) user to WP and have been working on creating basic, standardised, individual articles for the Donalds. I notice that your wonderful table on the article redirects five Donald hills to the White Coomb article by viewfinder, noting them (correctly) as subsidary summits. Apologies for how novice I am about to sound, but as they are not red text, I am unable to create a new article for them and am instead having to create, for example, Lochcraig Head, as a draft. I am wondering if it is possible for these anchors/redirects to be removed so that I may then allow you to link them to the hills once finished. If I should really be asking viewfinder to edit this then I do apologise. I dare not tinker about with the table! My secondary plan is to add a table of the 51 tops to the appropriate hill article, thereby linking all summits within your main table. The hills are as noted: Lochcraig Head, Garelet Dod, Molls Cleuch Dod, Under Saddle Yoke and Cape Law. I should also note that the subsidiary tops too link to the WC page and that Dungeon Hill and Beinn nan Eun both link to the incorrect article. Do let me know if you can lend a hand!

Kindest regards,

iangpark (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi iangpark, and great to have you aboard! If you have created Draft:Lochcraig Head, but Lochcraig Head already exists as a Redirect (and therefore you can't to a page move, then just cut-and-paste your Draft content into the Redirect article (i.e. overwrite the REDIRECT in the article), and publish. Does that make sense? Lochcraig Head will then no longer be a Redirect article, and will be a standalone article (e.g. the link in List of Donald mountains in Scotland will automatically go straight to it). Also, here is an example of a template mountain article that I recently brought to "Good Article" status, Ben Lugmore. Have a look at the infobox etc. for things that might be worth adding to your Donalds template. I think that List of Donald mountains in Scotland has the 51 tops in it, so little use in creating a new article list of Donald Tops (if that was your intention)? Always better in Wikipedia to try and centralize/aggregate things, as they will get looked after and updated. Isolated lists can get abandoned? Have I answered your questions? Britishfinance (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Emily Hale

The article Emily Hale you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Emily Hale for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Oulfis -- Oulfis (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Temporary, I hope?

I'm a big proponent of stepping away from the project when you need some time to focus on other things or cool off or just because, but it'd be great to see you back here when you are ready! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

+1 — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 16:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of MacGillycuddy's Reeks

Hello! Your submission of MacGillycuddy's Reeks 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! Yoninah (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tax inversion

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tax inversion 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 Goldsztajn -- Goldsztajn (talk) 08:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. GirthSummit (blether) 15:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

FYI, the relevant section is at WP:ANI#Accusation_of_undisclosed_WP:PAID_editing_/_large_scale_reversion_of_edits GirthSummit (blether) 15:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
(since archived to: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1008#Accusation of undisclosed WP:PAID editing / large scale reversion of edits) Britishfinance (talk) 11:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi - I see the ANI thread has been closed. I'm sorry that turned into such a long, drawn-out affair, and for any stress it put you under. I hope you can see why I thought it was necessary to raise the case, but regardless I'm sorry it went on for as long as it did, with all the repeated aspersions. I hope it hasn't put you off editing if you get time with your new real life stuff, and that there are no hard feelings? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 18:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Girth Summit. It was a pretty dispiriting process. A random new (unilkely) editor comes to WP and starts deleting large sections of articles and making wild allegations; and continues to do it (with other IP-socks), and doesn't get blocked. An admin makes further allegations, all of which are fully responded to, and then disappears. I don't have any hard feelings to you, and your ANI was not done out of any bias against me; however, it would have been appreciated if you had spoken to me first about your concerns (you would have seen the matter being discussed on my talk page above). There is an article in the Washington Post today that summarises the whole affair well Ireland is a tax haven. Britishfinance (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I think that's probably fair comment - I'll have to think about how I could have dealt with this better. Perhaps I should have spoken to you first (or, as you say, at least read through your talk page first) - not knowing how to judge which 'side' was right, I went straight to a community board rather than engaging with you directly, but  that might not have been the best move. I'm glad it's eventually resolved though, and without wanting to sound like a patronising git, thanks for all the work you've put into those articles. GirthSummit (blether) 22:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Girth Summit. Thanks for that, it is appreciated. kind regards. Britishfinance (talk) 09:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Belated Barnstars

Sorry to see the semi-retired headline, but I hope it's just for a while. I gather from a quick scan of the page that it was a combination of a return to routine work and a badly-handled AfD (so sad when that happens). And I was just back from a trip myself and thinking it was time to recognise some of the amazing work of the last year. Hard to credit that from my first sighting of your sig editing some neglected corners of Irish article space its been only 367 days, or so :-) Anyway, as I see you are still about, I proceed with:

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
for committed editing, and as needed, re-editing, of key articles on Irish taxation and economics - the top five edited >7500 times, and so much more useful and readable after. Amazing!

and

The Business and Economics Barnstar
for contributions to WP Ireland articles and elsewhere, with diligence and professionalism

Don't be a stranger! SeoR (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

And further, reading a little more, commiserations on being targeted by people in other lines of work who do not understand the rights and wrongs of Wikipedia. IDA Ireland does great work, but that does not excuse the behaviours mentioned, and no State body should be defending what most people would probably clearly, and instinctively, understand to be questionable practices - of no benefit to Ireland, as it happens (tax takes like 0.0004% do not count). Not that Ireland is the worst, at all - there are other EU members doing "very special" deals, for example - but anyway, Wikipedia's task is to elucidate, not cover or talk over. Keep up the good work, when the mood takes (or for fresher territory, do more of the great mountain / climbing editing.) SeoR (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi SeoR ! Really appreciate the barnstars and your kind sentiments. What started out as wanting to fix a few Irish-finance related articles, turned into a full-on addiction. I did try to fix many Irish tax-related articles by replacing all the references with high-quality academic references (or notable other publications), and after about 6 months I think I was writing proper WP standard articles (I even went back and re-wrote many earlier attempts). However, it appears that these newspaper articles have revived the "Irish tax trolls", and loads of Irish tax-related articles have been vandalized/PROD'ed today (e.g. Double Irish arrangement, EU illegal State aid case against Apple in Ireland, and Ireland as a tax haven‎. It is a losing battle I'm afraid. Britishfinance (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome, and I am very appreciative of the quality of editing and referencing made. I think I already bumped into one bit of odd "attack" editing (I see plenty of misbehavior in Pending Changes work, but it's not so common on Irish articles these days), and will check for more.SeoR (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I see the most egregious behavior has been tackled by others - good. And I did moderate the lede of the "IE as tax haven" article, as this is an allegation (as noted in the article, Ireland has never been so accused by the EU or OECD) and is a corporate-focused thing. But it's not like it's news that some major sources find Ireland's tax arrangements of concern, it has been discussed in parliaments, EU assemblies and more, and much in literature, and the Double Irish and more have been known to tax practitioners for a very long time, so I do not understand the personal attacks on yourself. I will visit ANI now too.SeoR (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks so much for that SeoR. With all these articles (EU illegal State aid case against Apple in Ireland, Double Irish, Leprechaun economics, Tax haven), any basic google search will throw up thousands of Tier 1 RS; they are notable topics with major financial impact; and most importantly, very interesting to any reader. That is why I wanted to do a better job on them. Your edits are much appreciated! Kind regards, Britishfinance (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Glad to see that the ANI discussion is over, and that you're still editing away, when time allows. And I was optimistic that the community would not just fold and allow a "losing battle" - I'm here a good while, and I think many editors take pride in our objectivity, and in not giving in to trolls, vandals and gremlins. So far, at least, I think the line has held, and standards have been upheld, and even IP edits were not one-way. Although I remain very unhappy about those odd edits a 237 address made to the Varadkar article, that smelled really "off." I am a little puzzled at the disappearance of Headless Nick, but probably some real life matter, and I do hope they return, and we can all work on the questions raised, and answered. See you around, I hope, not just in this topic area, but also in Hills, Mountains and Climbing - hard to credit but when doing a little tidying in Sport lately, I discovered that the Mountaineering Council does not even have an article, and whatever about rock / lead climbing, the Irish bouldering scene is pretty much missing in action too.SeoR (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
SeoR. Thanks for that, and I very much appreciated your input at ANI; even made the Washington Post today. The section in the Varadakar article was not appropriate for his BLP. He has a very incidental role in this area apart from re-iterating State positions. I will keep an eye on other articles linking to it. I had a notion of doing the "Ring of Kerry" as a better article (with all the individual spots upgraded); ironically, I do think that this is an area that an Irish State body should be supporting?? I think geographic-type articles are perfect for WP as they are more "stable" (e.g. need less updating once written). However, RL is getting busier now, so I will have to come back to it. Many thanks again! Britishfinance (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I am sad that Ireland as a country is embroiled in these matters, but at least it is debated; I'm not sure how much this happens in longer-playing "tax efficient" locations - but I really regret that it touched Wikipedia, and I am very glad that we as a community are now warned. I agree re Varadkar, and others, they inherited a situation, in this and many other areas, and certainly it was never part of their personal spiel. Geo articles are both more stable, and less tricky, so that could be a good area, indeed. And in the pure climbing space, without replacing proper manuals and route photos with markup, a few more quality articles like Alladie and Dalkey Quarry would help all concerned. So, when RL allows - and I myself am just back from 3+ days offline, as has happened several times this year - looking forward to seeing you around.SeoR (talk) 09:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
SeoR. I have overhauled (almost finished) most of the big tax haven tax inversion offshore financial centre articles on WP without a single disruptive edit from a non-Irish IP (and some good compliments). It is puzzling as to why some Irish editors have this attitude. It was interesting that just a few days ago, another academic study showed that Irish media are not helping Irish people understand these issues [12]. I don't think that Irish people realise there are US policy think tanks that have been producing 400-page dissections of Ireland's tax code for decades (e.g. there is nothing that Washington/OECD does not know about it). However, since Trump and the TCJA (and now the new OECD BEPS 2.0), things have started to fundamentally change in the way the US views Ireland in a way not seen for decades (if ever). Hopefully, the articles will keep people better informed.
Have you seen my MacGillycuddy Reeks, Brandon Group, Galtymore type-articles? I couldn't find any more good climbing walls so started on hills instead? Having fixed the Lists of mountains in Ireland article, I was working my way down but stopped at Baurtregaum, which needs updating too. However, I do feel that Ireland lacks a major WP series on the Ring of Kerry, arguably, its biggest tour? Anyway, thanks again, and look forward to seeing you around too. Britishfinance (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Probably should indent, but as a closing comment, I'll go out on a limb. First, sorry for not replying sooner; I was off for part of early May, and was on limited time and catching up after, etc. Yes, I have seen those articles, and other work on places in Kerry. I must try to add to some. The Reeks article is especially interesting as I have McGillycuddy cousins still farming in a remote valley deep inside there, and context on the family links (many people in Irish families have quite strong feelings about claimed "head of family" lines, as these are usually based on external models of descent, not the old Gaelic rules). I agree that a series and category around the Ring of Kerry would be a plus. I understand about the climbing walls, a very limited base in Ireland. That said, a good article on Climbing (sport) in Ireland, and maybe also one on Bouldering, would be good. But such articles are not so easy to write well, and could be a challenge on sourcing, though the MCI / MI journal would be one solid base. Very glad to see you're still editing away.SeoR (talk) 10:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tax inversion

The article Tax inversion you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Tax inversion for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Goldsztajn -- Goldsztajn (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

Administrator changes

removed Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

removed Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
  • An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
  • An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

  • The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
  • Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The Next Signpost

Britishfinance; I hope you saw the last Signpost "From the editors". In particular:

To mark the fifth anniversary of the terms of use change that banned undeclared paid editing, the next issue of The Signpost will focus on how paid editing affects our encyclopedia. We want to hear from editors, administrators, arbitrators, bureaucrats, WMF employees and board members. We want to hear from all sides of the issue, including those who oppose paid editing, those who support it, and paid editors – both declared and undeclared. And most of all we want to hear from ordinary Wikipedia editors.

I wasn't thinking exactly of you when I wrote this, but I think your story in a few short paragraphs could be very instructive. There may not be any room anymore for full op-eds (I'll see when I actually get the submissions), but I'm thinking of putting multiple "short stories" and quotes in a "From the community" article. Copy deadline for this would be June 25. Any help appreciated. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Smallbones: I would be delighted to return the help and do this for you. Just to understand, am I to write something regarding my experience of meeting paid editors, or being challenged as being a paid editor, or both? Am I to give a view on whether undeclared paid editing should continue to be banned? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
It might be interesting for our readers to see how you were accused of being a paid editor by (apparent) paid editors and how they took it into the mainstream press. Any opinion you have about paid editing is welcome, but as I wrote, it's best that it is just a few short paragraphs. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
@Smallbones: Understand now. I will get this to you well before your deadline. Where will I post my content? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
You can email me or just post it on my talk page or on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions Thanks Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
For your handling of the edit-warring and subsequent cleaning-up of Extinction symbol. You deserve this! -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that Rsrikanth05 – very kind of you. Britishfinance (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Reversion of talk page comments

Don't revert again. The editor has not retired, and they are currently misusing the retirement tag. You mean well, bless your heart, but please read up before making such bold reversions. CassiantoTalk 22:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Cassianto: I think we both mean well, but this whole "thing" has gone crazy now (the BN should be on admin-suicide watch). This is going to take weeks to solve, and ultimately the legal view (which I am guessing will be the BoT/WMF view), is going to prevail, regardless of the thousands of lines of text written. In the meantime, really good admins like Rob (who I have found really really good in my time), are heading for the exits because ... well, you know why. More civility amongst editors will not hurt the situation, given the central issue is civility? You have already made your point in his Talk Page (and I understand it), hammering it in again is not helpful to anybody – yourself included? I will leave it to you to decide. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
It took you two days to decide if my comment - and only my comment, I might add - was "grave dancing", even though the editor in question is still editing and misusing the retirement tag? I have to question your agenda? You are still yet to acknowledge these two things that I mentioned to you above. With regards to my "gravedancing", I think it disgusting that someone can openly call another person "an abuser", without evidence, and be seen to get away with it. If that were you or I, or anyone else, we would expect to be blocked. Oh, and FWIW, my opinion is that Rob has been a terrible admin and is someone who should never have had the tools in the first place. He has acted with his own, biased agenda at ArbCom, conducted himself elsewhere in a biased manner in disputes, certainly around infoboxes, and then wonders why there is not much respect for him when he steps down as a committee member. Of late, I think we have seen the very best in admins like Floquenbeam, Bishonen, and WJBScribe, and the very worst in BURob13. CassiantoTalk 07:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@Cassianto: So we disagree on Rob, big deal. He was voted in by the community as an admin and onto ArbCom, so he can't be all bad? I am not fully familiar with the other names you advocate, but they seem fine to me. I came back a day later having left a "sorry to see you go" post on Rob's TP, to see a subsequent "hard" comment repeating other "hard" comments already made to Rob earlier. It made me sad to see that, and done during a "crisis" regarding civility? Ultimately, there is no long-term future for WP if it makes enemies of ordinary editors? It can only diminish our (e.g. all of us) enjoyment of WP and reason for volunteering so much unpaid time to the project. As I said earlier, this situation will get resolved and it will likely be driven by legal considerations. I have seen enough BoTs to know that no trustee (without exception), is going to over-rule legal concerns over things like civility. It is right people feel strongly about this – the issues are serious, and material questions need to be answered; however, hammering things is not helping anybody's case. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
!votes at a silly RfA, a flawed process in itself, is not an indication that the person nominated is a pillar of the community. Quite often, people do little research before quick supporting in order to earn brownie points in the future. Do you think it's acceptable to label someone as "an abuser" without diffs, evidence, or links? What about the editing behind a retirement tag? CassiantoTalk 09:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@Cassianto: RfA is certainly not a perfect process, however, you see my point – on the most objective process we have, Rob has enjoyed community support? I don't think Rob was implying "child abuse", but it is not unreasonable given that FRAM themselves have disclosed the WMF have sanctioned them over a series of events? He could have chosen better words, however, that is why I left the earlier comments alone. My point is the hammering, and its relation to civility. You interpret Rob's editing post-retirement one way, I interpret it as Rob trying to be helpful (as I always found him to be, even when other admins gave up). Britishfinance (talk)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Britishfinance/Archive_2&oldid=1184169526"