User talk:7&6=thirteen/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Hurley, Wisconsin

Hurley WI entries under "Notable People." Why are continually deleting the entries for both John R. Sturgul and Paul A. Sturgul? You are only deleting those entries. They are legitimately notable people from Hurley. The source for John's entry is https://www.mtu.edu and Paul's entry is https://nelf.org I am perplexed by your action Do you have some animus against distinguished Professor John Sturgul and well-respected Elder Law attorney Paul Sturgul? ==

for Nikkimaria NorthernHistorian1 (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

What would you like me to do? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

User:NorthernHistorian1 You need to create an article on Dominic Gentile. Green Bay Packers coach. There are lots of sources for him, as I indicated in our article. And others you think are notable. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Restore the Hurley notables you have deleted. I have provided you with sources for Prof. John R. Sturgul and Elder Law Attorney Paul A. Sturgul. Thank you. NorthernHistorian1 (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you create articles for them, and then put them back. I don't have a dog in this fight. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

What is your source for your statement that only individuals who have wiki entries about them are entitled to be listed under notable people. There are countless people listed as notables in wiki entries who do not have wiki articles. I gave you the sources for both Professor John Sturgul and Elder Law Attorney Paul Sturgul. If you have deleted them and the other notables, please restore them. Thank you! NorthernHistorian1 (talk) 23:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I did not make the statement you attribute to me. Not my position. I agree with you.

I am not reverting your edits. In fact, I tried to put your additions back into the article. They need citations at least (and then you get to argue about "notability.")

Happy holidays. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:45, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

		Happy Holidays
		Hello, I wish you the very best during the holidays. And I hope you have a very happy 2023! Bruxton (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 52, 2022)

The Summer Palace of Peter the Great as seen from across the Fontanka River from a small Prachechniy ("Laundry") Bridge in August 2007 Hello, 7&6=thirteen. The article for improvement of the week is: Summer Palace of Peter the Great Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Central Bosnia • Telephone line Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 26 December 2022 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI •

December music

December songs

happy new year

We sang Charpentier's delightful Messe de minuit pour Noël today, which was on DYK yesterday, - a first for me, pictured, - enjoy the season! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:46, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Today, pictured, the soprano of our choral concert of the year. More in the context: User talk:Gerda Arendt#DYK for Talia Or, in case of interest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Critical thinking.

I've seen critical thinking described as "the ability to tell when your sources are garbage".

2501 rats killed within a 7-hour period would be one rat every ten seconds, for seven hours, nonstop. Are you assuming that there was some sort of conveyor belt dumping live rats into the dog's mouth to be killed, and then whisking their little corpses away?

And if we assume that each rat was half a pound, which is on the small side for adult rats, that would be over twelve hundred pounds of rat corpses.

We went through this on the Rat Terrier article a few years ago. Let's not do it again on the Ratter (dog) article. DS (talk) 22:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The source says what it says. That you don't like it carries no weight. WP:Verifiability not WP:Truth. You cast aspersions without any source. Ipse dixit doesn't trump WP:Verifiability. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:53, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

2501 rats per:

• RAT TERRIER BREED PROFILE Continental Kennel Club
• Continental Kennel Club; Rat Terrier savearescue.org;
• Standards National Rat Terrier Association
• HISTORY OF THE RAT TERRIER rat attack of North Carolina.

And we have some specifics of the event in the following:

Most rat hunting is done with dogs, commonly with varieties of terriers that catch and kill the vermin. The human hunter’s job: flush the rats from cover. The rat hunting record for that method supposedly occurred in England in the 1820’s, when a rat terrier killed an incredible 2,501 rats in seven hours in a barn infested with the rodents. The dog was the renowned Billy, whose career was legendary. I haven’t found contemporary records of the 2,501 rat killing, but they may exist. Most of his records are for killing 100 rats in a rat pit against the clock. Billy’s best was 100 rats in 5 1/2 minutes. I haven’t seen any records for human hunters killing rats . . .

As further context, we can watch or read the following:

1. rat catching with farm dogs about 250 rats part 1 rats fail

2. Rat Terrier “Exterminator dog” per the AKC.

3. Robertson, Elizabeth, D.V.M. (April 21, 2021) The Best Dog Breeds for Killing Rats National Canine Research Association of America

4. Amazing Rat Catching With Farm Dogs Kill About 500 Rats!

5. Ratting Dogs: Dogs, Not Cats, Are the Ultimate Rat Hunters! “Ratting dogs or ratter dog breeds are glorious. It’s funny that cats get all of the attention for being rat killers when, in reality, the terriers are absolute killing machines.”

6. Rat Terrier savearescue.org

This ought to end your Tilting at windmills for today. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 1, 2023)

Scarves in the Armenian Quarter, Jerusalem Hello, 7&6=thirteen. The article for improvement of the week is: Scarf Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Summer Palace of Peter the Great • Central Bosnia Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI •

Happy New Year, 7&6=thirteen!

Happy New Year!

7&6=thirteen,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 02:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

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

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 02:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Daily Dozen Doughnut Company

What's the difference between a Doughnut hole and a Rat Hole? Hard to tell sometimes. Makes me glad that I can't participate in this Shit hole (and time sink of a discussion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, the discussion continues here.

Awful result. Not just a normal doughnut or coffee shop. Is a cultural icon and feature. A landmark and tourist destination, rather like Café du Monde in New Orleans. That article exists and properly so. Memorable experiences. I remember going to both of these places; and they are an essential part of the ambience of the places. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

	Happy New Year!
	Hello 7&6=thirteen: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Edgar Cayce

Just wanted to stop by and briefly say thank you for your work over there. I keep an eye on the page to try and keep the worst of the woo away, but I think you've made more substantive improvements. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Just tidying up. Although the old article's format here has little in common with the current article. Kind of changes nobody (usually) notices. Except I have been pointlessly hassled about WP:CITEVAR on a couple of occasions. Some old dogs can't learn new tricks. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 2, 2023)

The start line of the Canberra Marathon in 2006 Hello, 7&6=thirteen. The article for improvement of the week is: Canberra Marathon Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Scarf • Summer Palace of Peter the Great Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI •

This week's article for improvement (week 3, 2023)

A kiddie ride is a coin-operated amusement ride for young children. Hello, 7&6=thirteen. The article for improvement of the week is: Kiddie ride Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Canberra Marathon • Scarf Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI •

This week's article for improvement (week 4, 2023)

Side one of a 1930 brochure for the Ambassador Hotel in San Francisco Hello, 7&6=thirteen. The article for improvement of the week is: Brochure Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Kiddie ride • Canberra Marathon Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI •

This week's article for improvement (week 5, 2023)

Hello, 7&6=thirteen. The article for improvement of the week is: The Sims (video game) Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Brochure • Kiddie ride Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI •

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:7&6=thirteen and Doug Coldwell content: Topic ban consideration. Thank you. — SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I have replied there. "First they came for the ..." And soon they'll be coming for you. The purge marches on. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for editing against community consensus and battleground behaviour. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  TonyBallioni (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Please listen 13

Thirteen, It's been a while since we communicated here because our paths haven't crossed in regards to editing but I still have your talk page watchlisted from then. I so appreciate the efforts we have made in the past on article retention/improvement, especially in the case of those related to Indigenous topics. I have known you to be a very passionate editor but also compassionate as a person. I don't know what the results in the AN discussion are going to be but I urge you to use this block as time to recenter and refocus your efforts on constructive editing. Trying to preserve the efforts of someone that has broken community trust is not a noble cause and not worth your time, even if that editor was or is a friend. It's not worth losing you as an editor. Please consider this as you reflect during this pause. There are efforts and causes worth discussing, supporting and even defending. Defending your friend in discussions is one thing but reverting and actively disrupting other editors in their efforts to safeguard the encyclopedia and remove copyright violations can and very likely will get you banned. Please allow the investigation and purging of copyright violations to go on undisrupted further by your actions. --ARoseWolf 15:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Bailing

7&6=thirteen, Your not bailing out are you? scope_creep^Talk 09:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I am silenced. Consensus is controlling. Other editors have made the message clear. Let them do whatever.

Haven't decided yet. Maybe.

Not up to me. If it weren't for the honor, I'd just as soon pass on being ridden out of town on a rail.

I am fatigued and disheartened. Further editing is questionable, since apparently anything I do will be misinterpreted. It is a big encyclopedia, but I am under the microscope. Will see how punitive and hostile this plays out. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

A 'fast trial'

The hostility that has cropped up at AN is striking.
I would completely vow to stop being involved with any "Coldwell" articles. Let them all be torpedoed. I bow before the will of the crowd. I still think it is a bad idea for wikipedia (and unjustified and a flawed process) but recognize there is nothing I can do to impede your progress or will. So carry on.
Conformity of this thought should not be a precondition of my editing here. Bad policy.
All I have done is improved articles.
The DYK block makes no sense. I haven't been involved in Coldwell DYKs in years. The more recent ones were articles that were at ARS that I improved (with on line sources) that I saved from deletion and that were vetted and approved through the normal DYK reviews. I managed to take ca. 30 of them from AFD to the front page. I fitting monument to AFDs that were ill advised. Some of those deletionists are now gleefully participating at the AN. I was long ago topic banned from ARS and AFDs, and I've respected the ban, however ill advised it may have been.
It used to be that getting a DYK was an 'attaboy.' Now it's a 'gotcha.' To those who are doing DYKs, forewarned is forearmed.
Guilt by association is no reason to block me.
You have blocked my editing, even as the AN is now transformed into a site block.
Which will assure that I will be blocked. Duct taping the defendant's mouth assures a 'fast trial' if not a fair one.
To be sure, there is nothing that they will choose to hear that will make a difference. No one has the cajones to stand up to the mob. I have no defenders. You've made up your minds, without regard to evidence, proof of infraction or proportionality of penalty. Judgment is made; only execution awaits. You will do what you choose to do. So own it and live with the consequences.
My good work means nothing in this debate.
I can't even retire.
Oh well! 15 years and ca. 150k of edits. The purge continues.

I hope the project does well. I have always shared its value.

So long! Sincerely 7&6=thirteen

A new level of accusation and paranoia — here. Not only "guilty by association." The downward spiral continues. I am not Doug Coldwell. You should be ashamed. But if you repeat the lies often enough, the truth won't mattter. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I've worked with you in the past and respected you before. I speak only for myself here when I say that this martyrdom complex is unbecoming of you, at least unbecoming of the editor I used to know. I urge you to take a moment to step back and look at the situation objectively and aa bit more dispassionately.

As for books and other offline/print sources, they're still quite acceptable. Unless a book is self-published, it is perfectly acceptable for use here. That has not changed. The issue instead is that Doug Coldwell has been found to have either falsified citations to print sources, plagiarized print sources (either through outright copying or close paraphrasing) or he has cited content to print sources that can't be verified within those sources. Based on that history, all of his edits are subject to additional scrutiny. While you or I may benefit from good faith when we our edits include print sources, his edits no longer qualify for that benefit. In short, one could say that Doug's reputation has been destroyed here by his own hand because he's been found to be a fraud. Because he was extended the benefit of the doubt on print sources, the numerous issues went unchecked for a long time, but they're still issues. His edit count, his DYK or GA count... they don't matter because at the end of the day, he still broke our rules and abused our trust.

As I mentioned in my comments at ANI, loyalty to a friend is commendable, but in this case, he's not longer deserving of your loyalty. In fact, in your attempts to defend him, you've obstructed necessary processes that require close scrutiny of his edits for actual, real-world legal reasons, namely the investigation into copyright violations. So you're faced with a choice: stop defending the indefensible and stop objecting necessary processes, or be shown the door. I can't make that choice for you, but the screen above is unbecoming of the editor I once knew. Imzadi 1979 → 17:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Imzadi1979 If you had bothered to read what I wrote above, you would be aware that I've given up entirely on User:Doug Coldwell and his articles. I have never met or spoken with Coldwell. I am not Doug Coldwell. But I can't and won't swim against the tide. I am unhappy with the direction of Wikipedia. But I am not in charge, and bow down to you and the community's judgement. (Orthodoxy of mind ought not to be required; it ought to be enough that I conform. You have my word on it. My promise is my bond.)

And I've been designated for special attention and treatment. This has been going on for years. Even paranoids can have enemies. This is not copacetic.

The "obstruction" was minimal (article improvement isn't "obstruction") and won't recur. I've given up on the articles, too. Flush 'em. It's Wikipedia's loss; and I have no skin in this game. And the penalty Draconian. This was no way to proceed; and I deserved better.

I have the liberty of speaking my mind before the chop. I have nothing further to say. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Hostiliity continues, and misrepresents the WP:Tban history.

But closed minds brook no retort. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen, I was one of the first ones to come here and offer some calming advice. I believe you are an amazing editor and still have so much to offer the encyclopedia. I can't defend your actions in the attempts to clean up copyrighted material, however, I can defend you as an editor, what you have done and what I believe you are capable of continuing to do. When you say to trust your word as your bond I can relate. I trust your word to not get involved any further in the DC's copyright situation. I also want it noted that I commend your loyalty to your friends even if I believe it to be misguided. The friendships we form here can be very strong, especially due to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. The hardest thing for us to do is submit to the fact that our friendships should never trump community consensus. My life is about colors and musical notes. I see them everywhere and in everything. You are colors and musical notes. I am colors and musical notes. All of nature is colors and musical notes. I fall in love with the diversity that I see and hear in this community and that inevitably endears some Songs to me but all Songs are precious, unique and valuable. Yours is no less and I trust you at your word. I trust the Song I hear and the Colors I see. --ARoseWolf 14:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

References

The record

There are those who say that I am out of step with them and where wikipedia should be. I disagree. And I submit that I was right

Other wikipedia participants here do keep and maintain lists of the articles they got deleted. A body count, so to speak. They get to do that and no one tells them they are wrong.

The purpose of posting at WP:ARS (now blocked) and my participation in editing articles, is exemplified by the following:

• My way or the highway ARS posting

• Fit in or Fuck Off ARS posting

• The Wants (band) ARS posting AFD

• Legal Advisor (Poland) ARS postingAFD

• Daniel Sillman AFD

• List of Settlements in Bedfordshire by population

ARS posting AFD

• Ian Marsh (writer) AFD

• Mike Tinney ARS posting AFD

• Clop (erotic fan art) ARS posting AFD

• ARS public school the retaliatory strike

ARS posting ARS posting posting Silly retaliation Maybe it means Article Rescue Squadron? [sarcasm] Dronebogus (talk) 04:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Why this article? Why NOW? And why again? This is a continuation of the just closed nomination And Dronebogus has now provided an explanation for his overwrought actions. Streisand effect. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 09:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Stop with your paranoid conspiracy theorist nonsense. Yes, I was making fun of your group for Molon labe-ing over this silly school article, but I also think there’s legitimate issues with notability and over-reliance on old AfD consensuses. Do you have nothing more productive to do than run the wiki around ranting about me? Even Andrew and Lightburst have cooled it a little after their tbans, and DF has participated in several AfDs (including this one) without stirring up drama. Why can’t you do the same? Not every AfD needs to be a battleground. Dronebogus (talk) 10:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC) If this closes as no consensus because of their obstructing nonsense again you should just renominate it. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC) I’ll be taking them to ANI again first so they don’t immediately do it again. Dronebogus (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC) nWho are you taking to ANI and for what reason? NemesisAT (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC) ARS posting

• Various demographic articles

ARS posting ARS posting ARS posting ARS posting

• Robert Spinosa ARS posting

• Daniel Sillman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Sillman

• Uranian ARS posting AFD

• List of Conflict by duration Draft; Little Big Time ARS posting AFD

• Rob Roy McGregor Rob Roy McGregoir ARS posting

AFD 7 edits

• Vesey Alfred Davoren Vesey Alfred Davornen ARS posting AFD 99 edits

• Seed counting machine ARS posting AFD 57 edits

• Armament of the Iowa-class battleship ARS posting

AFD

• Big John (dinosaur)

ARS posting See the extended discussion which is buried. AFD 85 edits [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_%E2%80%93_Rescue_list&oldid=1051958333Bib John Dinosaur (See MZ Tourist comments – continuing and irrelevant atttack on ARS)Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_is_getting_problematic Parallel discussion

• Cherman Shaik ARS posting

• Mac Ross (admiral) [1]

• List of living Medal of Honor Recipents AFD

• Lubi-lubi I had put in sources years before AFD

• John C. England AFD See the comment by MZTourist

I am frankly shocked, Mztourist, in another AFD on another genuinely notable namesake, didn't you claim that nomination was supported by precedent to delete all articles on namesakes? You failed to acknowledge there had been a procedural keep on a mass deletion. In the interests of civility and collegiality, I urge you to be open and transparent, in every discussion. Geo Swan (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC) Keep Nominators who do not make a genuinely meaningful effort to comply with BEFORE let down the entire project. Please, if you ever consider nominating another article, be more careful. Geo Swan (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2021 102 edits

• William W. Creamer [2]

• Shelby Gem Factory DYK

AFD Shelby Gem factor. Now a Good Article.

• Kristoffer Domeij AFD DYK 149 edits

• Edward Henry Allen AFD and mass deletion by User:Lettler and User;MZtourist

220 articles or thereabouts. I know about WP:AGF and apply it. But if you believe they did WP:Before in this process, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

• Bolt (cloth) AFD 150 edits Note this discussion: “Which info about bolts (fabric) would you wish to see in an article about (fabric) rolls? off topic wallpaper stuff could go into its own article, if necessary. (Also, "perjorative"? Are you a member of Project ARSehole too. It would explain a lot.) -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF” 15:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC) This was discussed at length [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bolt_(cloth)

at the article’s talk page.]

• Tom Rees (airman) & Harold John Ellison Tom Rees (airman) ARS listing

AFD AFD “another User:Lettler special. Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_C._England Keep per WP:POINT. This article has been worked on by numerous editors to the point that it has appeared on the main page. It is therefore generally acceptable as an adornment to the encyclopedia per our policy WP:IAR. The nomination is based on WP:SOLDIER but that is an essay and so has no official standing and the current RfC Template:Did you know nominations/Tom Rees (British soldier) Discussion at DYK

• Gun serial number Gun serial number ARS listingAFD 91 edits DYK

• List of tallest buildings in Augusta Georgia ARS listing AFD

• 86 (term) AFD

• Hamilton McWhorter III, William Mahlong Davis, Harry F. Bauer, George M. Campbell and Maurice D. Jester

DYK ARS listing See Mztourist’s comment here Harry F. Bauer, George M. Campbell, Maurice D. Jester Rescue listing

• Hamilton McWhorter III AFD DYK 117 edits

• Richard Haine AFD DYK28 edits

• Long face syndrome

AFD nDYK 59 edits

• Crooked BilletnAFD DYK 159 edits

• Derrick Morris AFD DYK 120 edits

• World record egg AFD DYK 103 edits

• Candida blankii AFD DYK 124 edits

• Daniella van Graas AFD DYK 121 edits

• A. D. Kenamond AFD

• Elizabeth L. Gardner AFD DYK 138 edits

• Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota) AFD

70 edits

• Maira Khan AFD

• John Tiedtke John Tiedtke (2nd nomination) AFD talk DYK 117 edits

• S.W. Randall Toyes and Giftes AFD DYK 113 edits

• Benno Bikes AFD DYK 75 edits

• Cecil Edwards and Democracy Manifest video AFD DYK 93 edits

• Albanese Candy AFD AFD 2ND nomination See User:Higking’s remarks.DYK 38 edits

• Andy Auld (Royal Navy officer) Speedy deletion DYK for Andy Auld (Royal Navy officer)

Updated DYK query.svg On 17 July 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Andy Auld (Royal Navy officer), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the Falklands War, Royal Navy officer Andy Auld helped make operational the Sea Harrier, a short take-off and vertical landing jet fighter? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while onC

• American athlete strikes talk DYK 21 edits

• Mercy dog Merger discussion DYK 72 edits

• Tom's Ice Cream Bowl AFD 111 edits

• Thomas J. Bray AFD DYK 96 edits

• Performance (textiles) AFD DYK 166 edits

• Arabeyes AFD

• Frank Masters AFD

• Nebraska v. One 1970 2-Door Sedan Rambler (Gremlin) Talk

DYK 110 edits at the article 73 edits at the DYK

• Church of All Saints, Houghton Regis proposed for deletIon. March 23, 2022 I ran across this on User:Dr. Blofelds page.

DYK 116 edits

So who was right and who was wrong? Should all those AFDs now be revisited?

I stand by that record. Get rid of me if that suits you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Your footnote 1 seems to make the argument that Doug used library books; that text cited to an offline source such as a book is not unsourced; and that therefore it is wrong to remove material Doug added that is cited to a book. Is that an accurate summary? I agree Doug almost certainly did get those books from the library; I see no reason to doubt that. I support removal of his contributions from his GAs. My argument (and I think that of many others) is that we have ample evidence that his use of those sources was not in compliance with policy -- failed source-text integrity, copyvios, and close paraphrasing are all very frequent problems with his work -- and given the volume of his contributions it is impossible to go through and verify each source against the article text, so we have to remove his contributions on the presumption that his work was not compliant with policy. Which part of that do you disagree with? As far as I can tell, you disagree with the assertion that we should presume contributions of his that we haven't examined are also non-compliant. Is that correct? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. He used them, I believe. He would often hector me about sources and encourage me to use inter library loans. I did some of that, but it is very time consuming and cumbersome.

I am not defending him or his articles. I am not arguing the merits of the decisions to do whatever it is you feel justified in doing. That horse has left the barn.

And any caviling with it will hasten my exit from Wikipedia. Anything I write here (including this) will be interpreted adversely to me. You are free to believe what you want, find what you want, and do it, too.

Thanks for the opportunity to comment. But no thanks anyway. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else commenting at AN, but for myself I am looking for an understanding that if the community decides that someone's contributions are inherently unreliable, then we -- which includes you -- should not hinder the removal of those contributions. As far as I can see you don't agree that Doug's contributions are unreliable, despite the community decision that they are, and you believe that his contributions should be protected despite the community's decision that they are unreliable. That position is directly in conflict with community policy. I'll think about it some more, but if you're not prepared to state your opinion in a way that makes it clear you agree with policy on unreliable contributions, I will have a hard time opposing the CBAN. Like some other commenters there I would like to find a way to oppose because it's clear you do great work much of the time and have been and could continue to be an asset to the community. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

contribs Thank you for your kind words.

I always use reliable sources for what I put into an article. Recognize that I do not necessarily go through and check the existing sourcing of every article to which I contribute. I have only done a couple of good article reviews, and I haven't submitted any that I recall. Obviously, that is a different problem. I do review sources if I am reviewing a DYK. I've done many of those If there are "unreliable" sources then they should either be eliminated or clarified (opposing viewpoints, for example). Copyright violations are not acceptable. When I became aware of a problem, I fix it, not just tag it. (See my user page.) But if they exist and I find them, I try to change wording and express the thought in my own way. If there is quote, I put it in quotation marks and attribute it. Understand that "fair use" and "close paraphrasing" are matters of judgment. YMMV. My history shows I understand, recognize and apply those.

I am not opining on any of your specific judgments or decisions about Doug Coldwell or his articles. That decision is made. It is final. Your questions about my state of mind are irrelevant. Hypothetical questions are sending me on a Fool's errand; it will change nothing.

As far as I am concerned, the community has spoken. And I have been run through the ringer, and internalized the message. This probably means that my RFA is doomed. {Gallow's humor — just kidding}. More to the point, imputed guilt by association is wrong. I can't undo my prior edits. I meant no disrespect, and was trying to help. But I am out of the way entirely on that issue. If that fails to persuade you, I apologize.

Follow the facts. Work for the good of the encyclopedia. That is my goal, and I assume we all share that. WP:AGF is not just a slogan. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

References

AN thread closed

Hi, 7&6=thirteen. I have closed the AN thread about you without consensus to siteban, but with the following topic-bans:

1. 7&6=thirteen is topic-banned from "all issues relating to [Doug] Coldwell, broadly construed". There was not much discussion of what precisely that means. Based on this discussion and previous ones about Coldwell, I will interpret this as
   1. All content pages that Doug Coldwell has significantly contributed to, broadly construed, or discussions in other namespaces related to those pages, again broadly construed
   2. Ludington, Michigan, broadly construed (largely a subset of 1a)
2. 7&6=thirteen is topic-banned from participation in WP:DYK, broadly construed. While there was little opposition to this proposal, it received less support than the other, and a fair amount of the support was qualified or hesitant; as such, I interpret the consensus relatively narrowly, applying only to participation in pages part of the DYK process and not, more broadly, to commenting about DYK in other venues (which is not to say the latter is a good idea).

Please see my full closing statement for further comments, and please let me know if you have any questions about the scope of these sanctions. Thanks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 6, 2023)

Belgian waffles cooked in a Krampouz cast-iron waffle iron, in a Montreal restaurant during the gastronomy competition of the Montreal Highlights Festival Hello, 7&6=thirteen. The article for improvement of the week is: Waffle iron Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: The Sims (video game) • Brochure Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI •

This week's article for improvement (week 7, 2023)

Campaign for the Norwegian Centre Party at Nærbø: like its Finnish and Swedish counterparts, the party has a strong focus on decentralisation, rural and agrarian issues. Ideologically, the Centre Party is positioned in the centre on the political spectrum. Hello, 7&6=thirteen. The article for improvement of the week is: Centrism Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Waffle iron • The Sims (video game) Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI •

This week's article for improvement (week 8, 2023)

Textbooks Hello, 7&6=thirteen. The article for improvement of the week is: Textbook Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Centrism • Waffle iron Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI •

Charles Gratiot

I know you mean well, but the situation with the content regarding Gratiot Avenue in that article is getting a little crazy from my perspective. I get that someone removed it originally because the road's named after the fort, not him directly, but that means the road's named after him indirectly by one degree of abstraction. You want the road mentioned there, and I agree based on my work writing about it.

However, I think it looks a bit silly to have five citations after a two-sentence paragraph. Usually anything over two consecutive citations looks bad. Honestly, I've seen situations like that described as "desperate to make a point" or such. Trust me, I've been there, adding multiple citations to a sentence in the M-185 article to prove a point that it's a "motorless highway" or such in the face of someone determined to remove it. I saw the light and pared it down so that it was appropriate.

If that were the whole situation though, that would still look off. But you have that explanatory note there that leads to a seven-sentence paragraph that has eight footnotes to seven sources. I'm not saying that the idea of the note is bad, per se, but it needs to be trimmed. It's getting a bit far afield for an article about Gratiot the man. You don't need any mention of L'Enfant and Washington, DC, at all, and you probably don't need any mention of Woodward and Detroit's wide avenues because Gratiot Avenue would have connected into the city someplace regardless of the city's street plan. Realistically, the last bit of the note should be integrated into the body of the article to say that the road was named for the fort, which was in turned named for the man. With a little editing, you get a compact explanation of this facet of Gratiot's enduring legacy.

As a quick side note, Gratiot, Wisconsin, doesn't belong in the article at all if it's named for Henry and not Charles. Put that in Henry's article, not Charles' because it's not Charles' legacy.

Now, I've trimmed that section down again because it's turned into a coatrack to pile on sourcing. You have Dr. Barnett's book citation and Farmer's book citation to back that the road is named for the fort and therefore also for the man. That's enough to warrant including the roadway in the article. If anyone disputes that, I'll support its inclusion. I won't support writing a miniature article on Gratiot Avenue there when we already have articles about it. Imzadi 1979 → 17:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Imzadi1979 You don't need my permission. And no explanation is necessary, but I appreciate the sentiment. I think Gratiot Avenue and the other places should be mentioned in the article. I was unhappy when it was wiped out.

You did eliminate quite a bit of material from here.

So, okay. I don't own it. And I'm done with the article.

FWIW, I think this belongs on the article's talk page, not here.

Happy editing. Best to you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Copying this to the article talk page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

No, this is something for us, here. I tried to trim back the unneeded content once while respecting your desire to have it mentioned in the article once. That's why I specifically commented here to explain myself, to you. Copying comments made to you, for you, to a public forum without context distorts them. You couldn't even use the {{copied from}} template so others would know that the "you" to whom I referred was a specific editor.

As for the one comment about the dead link. Well, it wasn't really dead. However, it was a link to the top level of a news website without the name of the article or a date on when the site was accessed. That's not a useful citation, doesn't validate that at one time it could have been used to verify things. That would be like me putting in a footnote to The New York Times, no date/page/etc. How do you verify something to that? In short, you don't, meaning we need a citation there to replace it. Imzadi 1979 → 23:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't add anything to an article. I did post that it was copied. Posting it there "did service" and eradicating it didn't, although you disagree. Since I had posted it, that (meaning my talk page) would seem to be the source. IMO. I didn't think that it needed to be templated; but you may be right. Sorry to have irritated you.

We could argue over whether it was a dead link or not. It doesn't work any longer. If that is an important distinction, indulge and fix it.

Again. As I said, the ball is in your court. I was not criticizing anything you have done. I merely thought other persons who want to edit that page should be aware. Do your best. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)