User talk:Rollinginhisgrave

Hello, Rollinginhisgrave! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at List of common misconceptions. CactusRoy🏴󠁣󠁡󠁱󠁣󠁿 (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CactusRoy: think I've been identified here by accident, I did justify the removal of material in the edit summary with reference to the talk page discussion (clearly a valid reason). Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rollinginhisgrave: Well I don't know about that , because I am a new editor. And not only that, but I am from Quebec and French is my language. Some fool anglos on this site believe since then I am not competent. Looks like the block is resolved - I am not sure who is correct here , I saw in the recent changes log 20 000 bytes removed and wanted to get the bloque

Best luck CactusRoy🏴󠁣󠁡󠁱󠁣󠁿 (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for one week from editing List of common misconceptions. Edit warring to remove swathes of content from the article and supporting it with formalistic wikilawyering on talk, such as, repeatedly, "Referred to in article as an urban legend rather than as common misconception", is pretty disruptive. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 15:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rollinginhisgrave (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

ah sorry, my initial removal of content was me trying to be bold. When it was first reverted and discussed with WikiDan61, I understood his approval of my reasoning on several points (including the urban legend point) as grounds for reinstating; my only revert after this wasn't due to edit warring but because the editor above who reverted it and flagged it for a ban (see above) didn't seem to notice I justified my edits on the talk page and had made the revert by erroneous logic. I didn't see this as something that required consensus before editing; I do now. I don't think it was wikilawering on the urban legend issue, as since we already have a page for list of urban legends, and both pages feature large bloat, doubling up doesn't seem super desireable, although I will avoid editing the page for such issues unless a consensus is gained for their removal. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only as the block has expired. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Comment There is no reason to appeal if you will 'avoid editing the page', as the block applies only to that page. CactusRoy🏴󠁣󠁡󠁱󠁣󠁿 (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are other edits I made which have been reverted not related to the urban legends point, including one on perfect pitch, where I noticed on the page for perfect pitch the cited 1/25 population figure refers to music students, not the general public; ironically the page for list of common misconceptions perpetuating misinformation. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm Sundayclose. Your recent edit(s) to the page List of common misconceptions appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 11:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of common misconceptions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The State Journal. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 06:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the source you added to Thatching because the newspaper article included whole sentences that were in the Wikipedia article before the newspaper article was published, an apparent case of copying from Wikipedia. Citing such a source in Wikipedia produces citogenesis, a form of circular sourcing. This is a growing problem, and one that I think needs more effort to inform editors about. Donald Albury 13:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for reverting both citations. I should have just dealt with the one. I wasn't paying enough attention to what I was doing. It is always good to see someone improving sourcing in articles. - Donald Albury 17:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of common misconceptions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wiley.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quality GA review on MidCity SmashedBurger; you did pretty good for your first one! TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 18:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like (Though the burger is not nearly "smashed" enough!) Thanks again for reviewing, and happy editing. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick review. I've nominated the article for FAC, if you'd like to leave additional feedback or comments on the nomination page. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your interest in Fostoria Shade and Lamp Company. I have finished "breaking off" the Consolidated Lamp and Glass Company piece from Fostoria Shade and Lamp Company. The Consolidated piece is still in one of my sandboxes, as I still have to create an InfoBox, Intro, and Background for it. As info, two of the references in Fostoria Shade and Lamp Company are self-published books: 1) Jack K. Paquette was overall Vice President of O-I Glass (a.k.a. Owens-Illinois). His book has citations (360 in chapter 5 alone) and a long bibliography. He has also written other glass-related books. Here is a link to his papers at U of Toledo; 2) Melvin L. Murray was a trustee for Bowling Green State University, and was a member of the Fostoria library board for 50 years. He was president of the Ohio Library Trustees Association. The research wing of the Kaubisch Memorial Public Library in Fostoria was named in his honor. He was president of the Fostoria Glass Association and was a founder of the Fostoria Glass Heritage Gallery, where he was curator emeritus and a lecturer. He uses trade magazines (probably from the Kaubisch Library) for much of the information in his book. In most of the times he is cited as a source, a second or third source is also used. Also, Wikipedia footnotes are used to describe his sources (Crockery & Glass Journal, March 1, 1888 edition; Pottery and Glassware Reporter dated November 29, 1888; etc....) where possible. Both of those two books are highly recommended by the Fostoria Ohio Glass Association. There is some info on the self-published issue under References that is commented out so one cannot see it without reviewing the source code. I will be having some visitors this Saturday and Sunday—so I will have to stay off Wikipedia on those days. TwoScars (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the great review. I have guests coming over to my house in the next hour, so I will not start fixing things up until Monday afternoon. TwoScars (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rollinginhisgrave: Questions about the Template:Inflation/fn. I have it working (a little) in my User:TwoScars/sandbox4. It is down at the bottom under "Test". I am using code ({{Inflation|index=US|value=720|start_year=1998|r=0|fmt=eq}}). What does the "r=0" mean? Second question: the footnote shows sources for many earlier years—not needed in this case. Is there a way to have it say only "1800–present: Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. "Consumer Price Index (estimate) 1800–". Retrieved February 29, 2024."?

Thank you very much for your excellent GA review. I learned a few things, which does not always happen with a review. Concerning the multiple rail lines: There are multiple advantages to having multiple rail lines serve a community. First, it means the community has multiple sites to locate a glass works, and therefore potential competition from landowners to have your glass works locate at a particular site. Second, it can be easier to ship and receive goods in multiple directions, even if they have to be trucked (or moved on a spur line) a short distance to get on a rail line. Third, a company does not have to be "captive" to one rail line. If rates get unreasonably high, there are alternatives. I think some of this reasoning is instinctive—the sky is blue, water is wet, etc.... yet some of the reasoning may be a little too deep for a glass company article. I'm inclined to leave it alone. Skrabec discusses the rail line influence on Libbey picking Toledo for a glass factory location (New England Glass Company was renamed Libbey Inc. a few years after the move), but not in this much detail. TwoScars (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TwoScars No worries at all, it was obviously a great article so a lot of fun to review. I'm not sure about removing some bits from the inflation cite template, I'll come back to this and get back to you. I'm happy with the rail stuff, it makes sense to me, it is pretty BLUE. My point was more about whether the site was unusually good, which I read the text to imply it was on this basis. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rollinginhisgrave, thanks for your contributions to WP:GA. I hope you are able to continue. I mentioned in the discussion at WT:GAN a bit of overfocus on GACR1, however, that may have been looking too much at your earlier reviews. The more recent Talk:New York State Pavilion/GA1 has the source spotchecks laid out, which is what we look for. It may be worth mentioning the source in addition to the relevant text, but the source checks seem to being done and that's the important thing. Also presentation-wise, I would lightly discourage the appearance of simply providing a checklist for the other criteria, although again this is mostly for appearance and ease of communication. I do understand that checking for neutrality, stability, and image licences does often feel like a bit of a checklist. I like your division of issues and "suggestions". Best, CMD (talk) 05:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for this feedback Chipmunkdavis, I really appreciate it.

Regarding neutrality, stability and image licences, you can see at Mariano R. Vázquez I am paying close attention to neutrality, and in Nabisco Shredded Wheat Factory and Mafeje affair that I am systematically reviewing images. I'm currently avoiding less stable entries, such as the Armenian history noms, so I can watch how other reviewers handle them before wading in.

I'll change up how I lay out my review of the other criteria; hopefully it helps with communication. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get that, neutrality is one of those criteria which doesn't matter until it does, so to speak. Image licencing is similar. Reviewing Armenian history noms is tricky indeed, if I remember I've quickfailed one or two before over neutrality. Thanks for taking the feedback on board, the GAN is an individual review process, but the clear communication can be very helpful to others who may look back on the reviews in the future, which happens often during future GANs (if the current one fails) or future GARs. CMD (talk) 06:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments (and fails) at Talk:Mount Kailash/GA1#Unreliable sourcing and Talk:Tamil culture/GA1#Content issues. Regards, TrangaBellam (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TrangaBellam I did see your comment on Tamil Culture, which is why I was empowered to close that review. I can also see India at the 2014 Winter Olympics now has an unreliable sources banner after getting promoted two weeks ago. Troubling. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rollinginhisgrave I happen to find this comment, while I had come to discuss the closure of the review Dance forms of Tamil Nadu. You had raised a few comments last week, which were being addressed by me.

Now, all of a sudden, the review is closed with no further comment with the preceding closing comment from a third user stating "Most of the stuff is inaccurate and this should not be a GA. More later." The comment is vague, general, undue and unwarranted.

Now that the earlier comments were addressed, it would do well if you care to elaborate the reasons, why it was being failed? Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Magentic Manifestation, I had concerns with the factual accuracy already. Before I looked through sources I could see some obvious factual inaccuracies, particularly the 400 millenia settlement and backronym points. I found TrangaBellam's points compelling on Tamil culture, so I trusted their expertise over mine. This put the article into quickfail territory.

Looking now at your responses, they don't respond adequately to their points, particuarly on NPOV and weak sourcing. You cannot respond to someone saying "this is FRINGE" with "it was published in a RS", even if it's true and not fringe. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for review. I apologize for the faults and regret that they occasioned a quickfail. Delabrede (talk) 12:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delabrede It's okay, thanks for the note. An apology is of course unnecessary. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I just wanted to thank you for you GA review for Ludwell–Paradise House. My life has been really hectic the last month (for positive albeit time-consuming reasons). Having someone as patient as you involved in the GA process was very appreciated, and your civility in critique was equally valued. While a booting to second opinion is never fun, it came after you worked very hard with me for over three weeks. Thank you very much for your continued efforts on the project, and never hesitate to ask for help from me via a ping or my talk page. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for these words. I'd love to talk to you offline when things quieten down and hear what's been happening. Also, and I'm not sure this needed to be said, I'd be happy to review any articles you can throw at me at any time. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I may just take you up on that. I've finally acquired access to the more than a dozen books that I've been assembling to rebuild the Wren Building article; I'll try to remember and ping you to ask for your insight when that article is formally revised sometime around around December. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rollinginhisgrave, You have been paired at good article review circles to review The Snow Queen (Kernaghan novel). At the same time, another user will be reviewing the article you nominated. Please wait 24 hours or until all users have accepted their nomination before starting your review in case a user in your circle decides to decline their invite.

To accept or decline this invitation to review the article, visit WT:GARC#Circle #8.

PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the GA review of Len Ganley; it's definitely been improved by your feedback. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I was looking at reviewing Angélique Duchemin within the next few days so I'm glad to hear this. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rollinginhisgrave, You have been paired at good article review circles to review Georgie Lane. At the same time, another user will be reviewing the article you nominated. Please wait 24 hours or until all users have accepted their nomination before starting your review in case a user in your circle decides to decline their invite.

To accept or decline this invitation to review the article, visit WT:GARC#Circle #9.

PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to thank you for your GA review of Georgie Lane! It was very thorough, helpful, and it was great working with you.

I didn't get your response to my email, though. Would you mind saying it here? FishLoveHam (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FishLoveHam Glad it wasn't too much. I'll summarise the email as the article didn't pass the spot check I put it through, and I think some information, such as the details on Tuvalu and climate change, is still unsourced, and it should probably be failed, or at least be subject to a rigorous source analysis. I'm also unconvinced that the article is broad enough; the subject matter has a lot written on it and the article is very short. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]