User talk:Art LaPella

Please helping write Udumbra by Falun Gong from sources : ^{[1] [2]}

Base Buddhism's book and ^[3] then Udumbra (by Falun Gong) is Chrysopidae eggs and photoshop. See more, or translate from in ^[4]

Thank you very much. Nguyenquocminhminh (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I often edit existing articles, but I never write new articles. I suggest you try Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social sciences/Religion. Art LaPella (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thank you very much, see the article in vi.wikipedia. There are many reference from Viet Nam's website. if you need I will provide. I can edit the actical Udumbara (Buddhism). But maybe my english is litle. Can you help. Or I can edit, but please help me review and correction grammar english? Nguyenquocminhminh (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are many results for Udumbara by Viet Nam google search https://www.google.com.vn/search?biw=1366&bih=659&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=Hoa+%C6%AFu+%C4%90%C3%A0m&oq=Hoa+%C6%AFu+%C4%90%C3%A0m&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i19k1.150448.152653.0.152850.20.9.2.0.0.0.327.503.0j1j0j1.2.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..16.4.547...0.tplm43F38Ts this result from Falun Gong. The comunity base on Buddhism's book. But really Buddhism's book don't mention color, size, shape of Udumbara. There are many article from Viet Nam show that Falun Gong using "Chrysopidae eggs and photoshop" and base on Buddhism's book to say Chrysopidae eggs is Udumbara to let Li Hong zhi is god of god, an buddha of buddha

Yes, if you write the article, or a draft in your sandbox, then I often improve the English in such articles (I'm American). In some cases I would have to ask you to re-explain, because I understand most of your English but not all of it. I don't have experience to know if English Wikipedia will consider it notable enough. Art LaPella (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Friend, I translate from wiki Viet Nam, please help me correction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Udumbara_(Buddhism)#Udumbara_.28Falun_Gong.29

Google search by Viet Nam, have above more than 2290000 (result for Udumbra (Viet Nam leanguage)). And there are above 1000 articles for Udumbara from 10 years until now, but original from Falun Gong.

File:The result from google search by Udumbra (Viet Nam leanguge).png

Nguyenquocminhminh (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. That text was easier to understand, but I had to use Google Translate to get English Wikipedia software to understand Vietnamese reference parameters. Please correct me if I misunderstood you. There may be a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view problem (for instance, if Vietnam is anything like the United States, there is little agreement on whether something is contrary to scriptures) but I'll let others debate that. Art LaPella (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helping Nguyenquocminhminh (talk) 06:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir Art LaPella,

Please see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Udumbara_%28Buddhism%29&type=revision&diff=798645886&oldid=797924280

I am sure that the source of Viet Nam are good. They are not self-published Vietnamese blogs.

And please read in the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Udumbara_(Buddhism)

Compare lacewings eggs published by Ohio State University and Udumbara published by Falun Gong[edit]

Google search: Udumbara

https://www.google.com.vn/search?q=Udumbara&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjn89-gnpfWAhUGfLwKHbdpDHkQ_AUICigB&biw=1366&bih=659

Page of Falun Gong: http://en.minghui.org/html/articles/2016/11/11/159905.html

Lacewings eggs publish by Ohio State University

https://ohioline.osu.edu/factsheet/ent-72

2405:4800:12A6:BB18:AD0B:29CA:504A:4172 (talk) 04:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained last time, I do basic proofreading. That includes improving the use of English in articles about places around the world. I have little experience with arguing things like whether references are good enough.

The usual place to debate whether such a section should be in the article is on the article's talk page. I don't think your sources are all blogs. In particular, Dân Trí looks like news, and it currently has an article about North Korean missiles. But Talk:Udumbara (Buddhism) is the place to argue that.

I don't understand the purpose of links here. The objection was about the sources you linked in the article, not the links you show here. The Ohio State article, for instance, is not a blog but I don't understand why it is here. It presents lacewings from a Western scientific point of view. It doesn't say whether lacewing eggs can be the same as tree flowers, because Western science considers the animal and plant kingdoms to be completely separate, so such a question would never arise here. Art LaPella (talk) 07:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You, Yes, Ok. If You read again the text as follows, You will understand what I want to say:

File:Image Fake of Udumbara Buddhism in website of Falun Gong.jpg

It was discovered in 1997 in China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Australia, France, the United States ... In Vietnam strange creatures were discovered in the provinces of Da Nang, Vung Tau, Quang Nam, Phu Yen, Hai Phong, Nha Trang, Thai Nguyen, Nam Dinh, Ha Tien. These creatures are said to be Udumbara.^[1] The images are cited by some Falun Gong websites as Uranus, when they are magnified 400 times. But some other evidence suggests that it uses Photoshop techniques.^[2][3][4]

Some experts think that the eggs of a winged insect of the genus Chrysopa in the Chrysopidae family named lacewings, are considered to be Udumbara flowers. Larvae of lacewings are called aphid lions. When laying eggs, the female secretes a glue and lifts its abdomen up to form a thin stalk. White eggs are laid on this thin stem to keep larvae from eating meat after hatching. The type of flower that is considered Udumbara is about the same size as the lacewing egg and also on a thin stem.^[5] In Vietnam, this exotic species is considered by some scientists to be a fungus, that can not be ascertained because of its strange appearance. However, there is no basis to consider this strange creature as the Udumbara because it is contrary to the Buddhist scriptures.^[6]

Falun Gong websites promote aggressively in their media, so there are 2,980,000 results for the word Udumbus.^[2][3]

While the scientific evidence provided by the Falun Gong organization to assert alienness is that Uucupunism is just microscopy, there is no biological or chemical analysis available.^[3] The smallest organism attributed to the Udumbara that the organization offers is theoretically different from the Buddhist text as figs,^[2][7] however, Falun Gong websites have created thousands of articles. The grounds that Falun Gong inserted were based on Buddhist texts to say that tiny creatures are Udumbara flowers.^[4][8]

Some articles claim that the strange creature is rumored to be the Udumbara because the Falun Gong organization wants to legitimize Mr. Li Hongzhi, the founder of Falun Gong as a God of God and Buddha of Buddha.^{[2][8][9][10]} The images that Falun Gong websites attribute to the primitive flower blooms of a single flower bouquet^[11] have been exposed by some articles as insect eggs,^[7] or moldy mushrooms, mold.^[12] After it was exposed that the alien creatures were not Udumbara according to some articles on Buddhism, Falun Gong continued to use Photoshop to confirm the creature as the Udumbara.^{[2][3][8][13]}

Next comment I will prove that the source are repliable, the source are not blogs, and and self-publish.

I improved the English for that text, so I recognize it. Do you understand that your argument needs to be made at Talk:Udumbara (Buddhism)? Art LaPella (talk) 05:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's in all the dictionaries, for instance here (see the examples). Is this a MOS thing? - Dank (push to talk) 17:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Lately I've been hyphenating "mid" based on this. Art LaPella (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does the ngrams viewer do a better job now correctly recording punctuation? It used to be completely unreliable for that. - Dank (push to talk) 00:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that, so please tell me more, as I use ngrams a lot. However, a Google Books search gives the same answer about mid-1945. I searched for "mid 1945", but most of the hits were "mid-1945". Art LaPella (talk) 02:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that search and others are turning up a lot more hyphens. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 03:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Art LaPella (talk) 06:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Six years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... and seven! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Art LaPella! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

• Thank you Art LaPella (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Art LaPella (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I read about the whale. I just didn't want the question to go unanswered. Art LaPella (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relating the Jewish synagogue of ancient Stobi to ‎BCE times would be a grave mistake. Please refer to the "Survey of ancient ‎diaspora synagogues" by Prof (emeritus) Gideon Foerster of the ‎Hebrew University Institute of Archaeology (and a world expert ‎on ancient synagogues)‎, also to the page of Stobi Archaeological Site: THE SYNAGOGUE BASILICA.‎(C.E. means Common Era; Maybe this was the root of the very ‎wrong B.C.E dating of the synagogue of ancient Stobi.) ‎Drz (talk) 11:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My reversion was based on routine proofreading, not any historical knowledge. You changed 4th or 3rd century BCE to 3th (sic) or 4th century AD, and "3th" was the kind of mistake I was searching Wikipedia for. So my question was, is this just a mistake with English as a second language, or is it vandalism? I looked up the given reference and it said "... synagogue from the 3 c. or 4 c. BCE ..." So I reverted. If nothing else there was a Wikipedia:Verifiability problem. However, I can no longer find that quote in the reference, so I suppose it has been changed. Time for me to leave that issue to others. Art LaPella (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:DoblenaPedro is/was attempting to edit/vadalize your user page, but the edits were disallowed. See user's filter log for details. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. Thank you, but I'm assuming good faith for now - it isn't obvious to a new editor that editing a user page is evil. Art LaPella (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but editors react differently when their page is edited by another user. Happy editing and Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - it's odd, it was definitely on tomorrow's main page when I reported it - I don't know where the "eligible" section is! DuncanHill (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not odd, it's my fault. Howcheng edited the page 13 minutes after you reported it, and I checked for that routine problem, but I must have done it wrong.

The Eligible section can be found at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/February 18 by clicking "show" in the horizontal blue line across the middle that also says "Staging area". Howcheng moves items in and out of that section, to avoid using the same material every year. Art LaPella (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this becomes more frequent let me know and I can protect your page. I have blocked DoblenaPedro indefinitely. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Art LaPella (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry, I accidentally left you out in my first edit so you won't have received a ping. So, ahem, PING. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... like tomorrow's DYK? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Since I didn't want to respond via a dummy edit you might not even see, I want to clarify that "Reto-Moto", with a hyphen, is the proper name, as it is the way it appears in most sources published prior to the reveal or their hyphen-less logo. It is also their legal name.[1] Therefore I'd argume "RETO MOTO" is just a stylization. If you have any further questions, let me know. Cheers! Lordtobi (✉) 18:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding the W Awards page for me. Pine✉ 18:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really should have asked this before now ... are you okay with making these edits, or would you like to see some process in place that fixes this stuff before you get to it? I've taken the position for 4 years now that image stuff is basically up to other people, and that's worked so far ... but mainly because you've been so diligent, and maybe you'd like for us to fix things so you don't have so much work to do. - Dank (push to talk) 14:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My edit to that page wasn't "image stuff" from my perspective because image caption text is edited like any other text. It was uncapitalization, and I can't imagine practical software to detect proper nouns. They say proper nouns are anything unique, but in practice the only way to decide if something is really a proper noun is to use Google Books. Any such process could only mean that somebody like me rechecks the same stuff I'm doing, and they could volunteer now without needing any official process for it.

Let's start here: I have no objection at all to asking for a volunteer specifically to check image captions. I'm just asking your preference ... would you like for us to ask, or would you prefer to keep doing that the way you have been? - Dank (push to talk)

I would prefer to leave it alone – each of us volunteers to do things, and demanding it from others doesn't work well in my experience (perhaps it's different in Featured Article land, but I seldom go there.) Art LaPella (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean my frequent edits to "recently featured" italicization like this one? That isn't image stuff either. FACBot was supposed to handle italicization, but it doesn't and it never got fixed. It would probably be more cost effective to fix the bot than to keep picking up after its mistakes, but the bot's designer would know that better than I would. Art LaPella (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging User:Hawkeye7 ... Hawkeye, I noticed you've continued to write bigger and better scripts over the years, and I'm wondering if it's possible now to get FACBot to handle partially italicized article titles. - Dank (push to talk) 15:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I guess we'll have to keep fixing these; I think I got all of them in November (and most of them in October). Two other areas where you've been making corrections: as you know, I've had a hands-off policy on images and captions for 4 years, but that policy isn't working as well as it used to, so now I'm looking at captions and thinking about which images we're using. That should mean less work for you; we'll see. And on non-breaking spaces: I've never met any two Wikipedians who can agree on where they should go. Just because we have a guideline page saying that consensus exists doesn't mean that consensus exists; this isn't something that can be legislated. I'm going to have to keep on keeping my distance from this issue. What you've been doing on TFA blurbs seems to be working, in the sense that we don't get arguments over it on Main Page day. (True story: the very first "big" discussion I joined 11 years ago when I started on Wikipedia was on non-breaking spaces. Most of what I was learning at the time about how Wikipedia did and didn't work, I learned in that discussion. And everything I learned then is still applicable now. Including to non-breaking spaces. Especially to non-breaking spaces.) - Dank (push to talk) 17:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-breaking spaces? I don't know what WP:NBSP means either, but it explicitly includes World War II, and thus presumably anything else with a I or a II. "I" by itself does look like a pronoun. Does a guideline prove there is a consensus? Well, no, but it's the best indicator of a consensus we have. I've seen long discussions with a conclusion opposite to a guideline, and nobody bothers to change the guideline or even try. It provides a steady stream of drama, which perhaps performs an underappreciated function of drawing editors for the same reason people watch soap operas. When I see the Main Page breaking some rule nobody knows, I'm likely to leave it alone, although I don't change it to break the rule as many others will. I recently started doing World War II edits again, after someone brought it up at WP:ERRORS. Art LaPella (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Medicine Barnstar
		Art, thank you for your copyediting on 2018 Kivu Democratic Republic of the Congo Ebola virus outbreak,recent events[2] indicate this will be a long one and Im thankful to have your help ...Oz Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome Art LaPella (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks again[edit]

[3]thanks Art, I don't know what I was thinking--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• fixed[4]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Art LaPella. Please excuse me if I am doing something improper, as I am new to Wikipedia. I am contacting you because you are a speaker of both English and French. I have created the page Draft:Pierre_Jovanovic nearly 2 months ago, and I am waiting for a review. Could you please consider having a look at it ? And again, please excuse me if my request is improper. I am learning the ropes. Best regards. Micha Jo (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I copyedit articles but I don't write my own articles, and therefore I have never reviewed a draft (you probably know more about drafts than I do). But I did copyedit your article in the same way I copyedit other articles. You overestimate my French language skill (that isn't what "fr-1" means at Wikipedia:Babel) but that isn't important because the article is in English, I understand Google Translate, and I often copyedit articles that have the sound of English as a second language.

Your references repeat the phrase "recherche, résultats de;" 16 times. What does it mean? I know it means "research, results of", but even so it's unlike anything I've read on English Wikipedia. When I click reference 3 for instance, the book is offered for sale, Walcker is mentioned as an author, and Foyard as an illustrator, but what do research and results have to do with it? Art LaPella (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Art LaPella. Thanks for pointing this to me. This is a bug of the "Cite" bot in the editing section. I cleaned them all by hand. Kind regards! Micha Jo (talk) 07:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Art LaPella: Please, I need your help. My first article, which was approved after a 2 month review process was submitted for deletion by user Bradv. See here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pierre Jovanovic. I presented strong arguments in the talk page Talk:Pierre_Jovanovic, but they were not considered. Could you please have a look, and support my page if you like it ? Also note that Bradv is the infamous editor which deleted the Wikipedia page of Mrs Strickland who later won the Nobel prize in physics: [[5]] and [[6]]. Thank you and kind regards. Micha Jo (talk) 03:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but as I said I stick to copyediting and I don't believe I have ever commented on a deletion discussion. Both you and Bradv have expressed more understanding of deletion criteria than what I'm familiar with, so I don't have anything to add on the subject. I bookmarked the page in case the argument gets ugly. Art LaPella (talk) 04:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. Regards Micha Jo (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Art this is to inform you that West African Ebola virus epidemic which you edited will be submitted for WikiJournal of Medicine...The objective of this message is to invite the contributors to collaboratively submit the article for review through Wiki.J.Med, and if possible, to help in further betterment of the article in accordance to the suggestions of the reviewers. Wikipedia articles are collaboratively authored. So, it is very important to make the authors aware of such a process that the article is currently undergoing[7] thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I went over the whole article again, and some of the corrections can also be made here at Wikipedia. The article goes into details about vaccine testing, but it never mentions that vaccine was actually used in the current epidemic. One would think that using a vaccine in an actual epidemic would be the ultimate test, so the article seems out of date concerning vaccine testing. I could have removed the outdated phrase "Current infections have not run their course", but you might want to redo the rest of that paragraph to account for that change. Art LaPella (talk) 05:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ill take a look,thanks Art--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I've a question regarding external link stuff. What was written in Wikipedia: External link,we must avoid from putting Facebook in the external link. Does it mean it's "forbidden" or "better not" to be in any particular article? Need your response ASAP. CyberTroopers (talk) 08:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That guideline's actual wording is "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject,[5] one should generally avoid providing external links to:" so it means exceptions would be unusual. Are you asking how well the rule is enforced? If you do it once, someone will hopefully notice and revert it, but you won't be banned or anything. If you edit war over it, even after the rule is explained to you, then you could eventually be blocked. A better place for such questions is Wikipedia:Help desk. One reason is that you posted just after bedtime in my time zone, so "ASAP" turned out to be overnight. Art LaPella (talk) 14:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Art. Many years ago, you created a number of pages in Category:Wikipedia Did you know rules. At the moment, they seem not to document anything that isn't already found at the main rules pages. I'm wondering if you could help me understand the context in which they were created: I'm going to make an attempt to streamline the number of guideline pages around DYK. Vanamonde (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Streamlining sounds good to me. I also wrote down the "unwritten rules", now called "supplementary rules". Before then, nominators were pretty much expected to anticipate current whims or learn them by trial and error. At the time, the category you mentioned was intended to replace and consolidate the existing rule page systems. In particular, I think they were explained better for outsiders. The existing rules, at least at that time, start out by assuming you already know the rules, and tell you things that only administrators need to know when updating, and even the history of the project – but not the basics of how to nominate a new article until much later, and even then it wasn't all in one well-explained place where we could point newcomers. The system seems more intended to give power to Did You Know gatekeepers than for efficient use by those who don't know the system. But the consensus went against me. It was left as a system for outsiders to learn Did You Know rules only, which I thought would soon lead to general acceptance. Instead, you're right, it's just outdated duplication, and I gave up trying to reform rules pages. Good luck. Art LaPella (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: I appreciate the effort you have put into it. I think what I will do is read through your pages and see if there's not material that would help if it was incorporated into the three main pages (the rules, supplementary rules, and reviewer guidelines) and then mark them historical. I think you will agree that keeping as much of the material as is practical in a single location is less confusing. I might look into moving them into a separate category, so that they are still retained as a historical record without the possibility of their being confused for contemporary guidelines. Please feel free to challenge what I do if you disagree with it. Best, Vanamonde (talk) 2:35 pm, Today (UTC−6)

You talked about 96.244.154.58 adding that bracket in Lincoln–Kennedy coincidences urban legend. How did you find it instantly? —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Wikipedia help page, Help:Page history. Or in my own words:

• Click Lincoln-Kennedy coincidences urban legend

• Near the top of that page, click the words "View history". There is a similar link at the top of any Wikipedia article.

• Now you're on the revision history page. Look for "04:42, 19 November 2018". That is the time of the most recent edit. Other details on that same line include your name, because it's your edit, and your edit summary for that edit.

• On that line, click the abbreviation "prev". Now you can see what you changed.

• Go back to the revision history page. The next line has my name, Art LaPella, because that was my edit.

• When you click "prev" this time, you will see my edit, which was wrong (I was trying to undo your comment, not just your last edit.)

• Similarly, you can see the effect of each edit on the list.

• If you already knew that, I apologize. In that case, the short answer is that the page was on my Wikipedia:Watchlist, so I knew it was a recent edit, and all I had to do was check recent edits.

• Or if you didn't know it was a recent edit, you can find out who changed something by clicking "Find addition/removal" on the revision history page, also known as "WikiBlame".

• Art LaPella (talk) 05:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Art LaPella (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I miss stupid errors due to my dyslexia. I appreciate your help. WCM_email 00:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Art, I've bookmarked your Devil's Dictionary of Wikipedia Policy. Xcllnt contribution. Sca (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I haven't looked at it in a few years. Art LaPella (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. I really need to get to bed ... you're welcome to do them all, or I can get them tomorrow. - Dank (push to talk) 04:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you, I "did them all". Art LaPella (talk) 04:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the recentlists that the bot doesn't do correctly. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 12:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Art if you have a chance please answer here thanks Talk:2018–19 Kivu Ebola outbreak#Requested move 15 June 2019--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps specialists would be misled by the connotations of "outbreak" or "epidemic", but there's an infobox, and neither word has misleading connotations that I know of. Wiktionary:outbreak says "Any epidemic outbreak causes understandable panic" without distinguishing the two words. It implies an outbreak might also be an outbreak of a disease in a single patient, but the context excludes that interpretation. It seems like half the discussion of the article has always been arguing over the title. Art LaPella (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yes your right--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry Art, didn't mean to[8] I wanted to reverse the table edit, by prior editor--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Art LaPella. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your fifteenth Wikiversary! Thanks for everything you've done to make Wikipedia a better place. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Art LaPella (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Art LaPella,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Art LaPella (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Art LaPella (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Art LaPella, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, JACKINTHEBOX • TALK 08:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thank you Art LaPella (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Quiet hours. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 13#Quiet hours until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Art LaPella (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Art LaPella. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 04:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Art LaPella (talk) 05:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Art LaPella (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "you"? Do you want me to bring up the problem of spaces before templates and scheduling before the blurb gets done with the scheduling coords? Are those problems? - Dank (push to talk) 15:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"You" is "y'all" (you plural), and "you knew that" means you knew it was too long (not that you would intentionally forget spaces). A couple times in the past, blurbs have been too long because the procedure starts with a long blurb before it gets shortened. I have no problem with that procedure as long as it isn't a mistake you're going to regret when it gets to the Main Page. Well OK, there is a problem, sort of: my quality control attitude gets stressed when I hear that something will be fixed later (something in the back of my mind says "yeah, right!") But anyway, it sounds like you did indeed know that. Art LaPella (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've dropped a note to the scheduling coords about the spaces in front of "Full article". It sounds like you'd like to see a template at the top of not-done blurb pages letting people know that, well, the blurb hasn't been done yet. That's probably doable. - Dank (push to talk) 18:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an "unfinished" template would make me relax (assuming it doesn't get to the Main Page with a template!) although it's easy to imagine it not being used. Art LaPella (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. - Dank (push to talk) 18:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just chose you at random as an admin. I've got a question re. forum-shopping and I wondered if you could help? Boynamedsue (talk) 08:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not - my experience is with proofreading protected pages, not drama. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard? Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests? Art LaPella (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, cheers for the advice. All the best. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please do you think there's any chance I can get Nigeria to OTD tomorrow. That would be her 60th independence anniversary, and the article was last featured 2016. The article also appears to be stable. I've had a read of Selected Anniversary guideline, and I'm made to be aware that only admins can change tomorrows article. Thank you. s11c. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.89.1.138 (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking User:Howcheng. Art LaPella (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the Nigeria § Languages section is tagged for needing more citations, so the article is ineligible. —howcheng {chat} 16:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• thank you Art LaPella (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening, Art. My name is Charles Shaulis, I am 70 years old, and live in Topsham, Maine. For the past two months, I have been editing the Wikipedia article "Battle of Yongyu." I found the original article, "Battle of Yongju," during my research of the 187th Airborne Regimental Combat Team's airborne operation at Sukchon-Sunchon, North Korea during the Korean War. My father was a C-119 Flying Boxcar pilot assigned to the 314th Troop Carrier Group that carried the paratroopers from Kimpo Airfield to the Sukchon-Sunchon drop zones. A while back, my brother's children asked me to document their grandfather's US Air Force career. Dad was a veteran of World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. I have used Wikipedia often in my research of his Korean War service, but never made a major edit of a Wikipedia article until now. Just when I thought I had the errors corrected in the original article and suitable information of historical significance added, User Ivan the Boneful (I don't understand the use of pseudonyms) on 17 October added three banners to the article: Lead too long, Overly detailed, and Tone, without offering any suggestions for improving/correcting same. My first thought was WTH. So, I looked up Wikipedia's descriptions for why these banners would be added to an article. First, in my opinion, the word "may" changes the objective to the subjective; i.e., the old "open to interpretation" opinion. Anyway, I "cleaned up" the lead section to conform with Wikipedia's suggestions and removed the Lead too long banner. So far, so good. Rather than asking Ivan to justify his reasons for the remaining two banners, I thought I'd ask you, as a disinterested third party, to review the "Battle of Yongyu" article, keeping the Overly detailed and Tone banners in mind and offer me your suggestions for improving the article. Regarding the Overly detailed banner statement that "This article may contain an excessive' amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience'," what is excessive? Rather than discuss this in the open forum of talk pages, I might suggest that you contact me via email. Finally, thanks for catching the "p" vs "pp" typo. Best regards, Charles Shaulis (talk) 05:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I used Wikipedia email, as requested. Art LaPella (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Art LaPella (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	Merry Christmas Art LaPella!!
	Hi Art LaPella, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all you do--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Art LaPella (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, looks like you're the winner of the Wikipedia:Billionth edit pool. We're at about 999991500 now, and your guess (February 12, 2021 if you don't remember) is the closest one (or at least, the closest one that's actually eligible). Ionmars10 (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I responded there. Art LaPella (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Congrats from me too. You're probably going to get a mention in The Signpost, so enjoy your "fame". BTW I wonder if we are neighbors IRL? ☆ Bri (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. Federal Way. Art LaPella (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Congratulations on being the most accurate predicter of the "billionth edit" Fuzheado | Talk 16:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll copy it to my user page. Art LaPella (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on winning the pool, Art! BTW: I totally agree with your statement on your user page; WP:404 is going to be the death of this encyclopedia if we don't come up with alternatives. Cheers, Mill 1 (talk) 11:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Congrats!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone. Art LaPella (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Art if you have a chance/time take a look at this article for the usual, the pandemic isnt dying down to take to GA but I might run[9] it by WikiJournal of Med(like the Ebola article) and see what they say, thank you... (I know the article is rather large, so if you dont have the time I'd understand) --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. I got to COVID-19 pandemic#Asia last night. Art LaPella (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

minnesota[edit]

the ref indicated that the Brazil variant is in Minnesota[10] as do other sources[11]...? (why is it 'wrong according to the reference')--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Brazil variant is in Minnesota, and I agree that the reference says so. I disagree about the meaning of the text that I fixed: "The China COVID-19 vaccine CoronaVac indicated 50.4% effectivity in a Brazil clinical trial; which since has that variant detected in Minnesota 2 days ago."

For one thing, I had to read that sentence over and over again, trying to understand it. Those words don't go together for me. And what was "that variant detected in Minnesota"? The word "which" means that the subject of that clause was previously mentioned in the sentence, usually immediately before. But that would mean that the Brazil clinical trial was detected in Minnesota, which doesn't make sense. The China vaccine wouldn't be "detected" in Minnesota either; if it were used, it would be openly reported, not "detected". Even after puzzling over the sentence for minutes, my best guess was that what was detected in Minnesota was the South African variant mentioned in a previous sentence. Even when I read the reference about the Brazilian variant in Minnesota, I still thought that must mean that the Brazil variant must be another name for the South African variant. But I found that it isn't. So I think it's unlikely that "which since has that variant" will be understood to mean the Brazil variant.

I asked my wife to read the previous version. She agreed that it makes no sense. And her best guess was that it was the China vaccine that was detected in Minnesota. The Brazil vaccine variant was a complete surprise to her. Like me, she knew there was a UK variant and a South African variant, but not a Brazil variant. Art LaPella (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also fixed the date. The reference says Monday, which would be January 25. 2 days ago would mean 2 days before the only other date in the paragraph, January 29. 2 days before would be January 27, not Monday, January 25. And I made the Brazil variant in Minnesota a separate paragraph, because it has no relationship to a clinical trial that happened to be in Brazil. And I put the paragraphs in chronological order. Art LaPella (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes I see your point, my wording was not very good( and I put too much into a couple of sentences), that being the case, I apologize, your correct--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Art LaPella:. Gender is sensitive information. Please see Privacy policy.

@Deb: @I JethroBT: is it ok to reveal this info. (gender), on Wiki, whether false or not without consent like @Art LaPella: did? Ear-phone (talk) 10:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To make it clear, I simply didn't want to use a circumlocution like "he or she", which as far as I know is OK on a talk page. I wouldn't call it revealing Ear-phone's gender because I didn't know what it was. Art LaPella (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have a very interesting user page that I thoroughly enjoyed reading. I'm sure I could learn a lot from a conversation with you!

––FormalDude ^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 04:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It hasn't been edited much lately. Art LaPella (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Art LaPella (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Art LaPella (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

DQ DOB is not 1986...it's 1983...He himself says in an interview that Wikipedia is wrong. And also he's classmate of Hibi Eden MLA (Politician at Ernakulam district). There's a movie called "Mutharamkunnu P.O" which was released on June 1985. In that movie there is a scene which actress Lissy says that Mammootty sir has 2 children. Isn't that enough for the evidence. And also read 1987 Vanitha Magazine. In that edition it is mentioned that Dulquer age was four at that time. 103.166.244.161 (talk) 08:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any of those references. "Isn't that enough"? I don't know, but at least you have to say so in a citation, like the rest of us. Help:Referencing for beginners Art LaPella (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022!
	Hello! I hope you have great holidays! --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Art LaPella (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A token of thanks Hi Art LaPella! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Art LaPella (talk) 01:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Al-di-la and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 26#Al-di-la until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Grk1011 (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Pirate Weapons and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 6#Pirate Weapons until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Art LaPella. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Art LaPella (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello hello. I hope this message finds you well.

The Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Board of Trustees election ends soon, please vote. At least one of the candidates is worthy of support. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Art LaPella (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy adminship anniversary! Hi Art LaPella! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your successful request for adminship. Enjoy this special day! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Art LaPella (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Pugilistic and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 11 § Pugilistic until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Art LaPella! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Art LaPella (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect I-Kiribati and it has been listed for discussion. Anyone, including you, is welcome to participate at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 11 § Ikiribati until a consensus is reached. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 00:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]