Excellent work on the expansion of her article. I've removed the stub tag. And welcome to Wikipedia! Lugnuts (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts Did you notice that our gal (Halet Çembel) was part of today's Google Doodle in celebration of International Women's Day and that this article was linked to her picture? AnthroMimus (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, no, I did not know that! Excellent news. Also explains the higher than normal levels of vandalism over the past 24hrs... Thanks for the ping. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 07:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gtwfan52 (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You recently disputed the neutrality of the article on the Sadler report giving the following reasons:

This whole article is not only argumentative, it is based exclusively on Austrian School Economic arguments and cites^A . All of the "economic historians" are libertarian-Mises Institute types. There are no citations to historians of British political history at all. Moreover, it is not written like an encyclopedia article. It is shaped solely to agree with a certain view of political economy^{B C} >.AnthroMimus (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

(A) As a statement of fact, this has serious problems. When you posted that, the article gave 25 references, only four of which were in any way from the Austrian School or libertarian community; and those references were given to establish that there were critics of the report. Neither the presence of these gentlemen in the references nor the absence of other references to political historians establishes a non-neutral POV – can you point to any significant misrepresentation, misreporting or weasel words in the current text? (In any case what additional information/insight is a 21-st century historian supposed to be able to provide that Sadler’s contemporaries could not?)

(B) This would appear both to assume bad faith in others, and to presume to tell them what their politics are. Where I come from, that would be thought to be bad form verging on unbelievably rude

(C) You give no specific instance of non-neutrality needing to be addressed, beyond letting us know that you do not share the views on political economy of some of the references. Those views are not promoted in the article; they are not even mentioned.

There are two separate issues; the desirability of state intervention in man-master relationships, and the accuracy of the evidence Sadler adduced in favour of such intervention. One does not have to be opposed to the ‘big state’ to think Sadler’s report unreliable. It is possible to believe that

1. Sadler’s report contains no inaccuracies or exaggerations, but that it still does not justify state intervention (although you would have to be hard-hearted to take that line).
2. Sadler’s report contains no inaccuracies or exaggerations and makes an overwhelming case for state intervention.
3. Sadler’s report is unreliable because of multiple inaccuracies, exaggerations, and (possibly) untruths, that therefore it gives no reliable justification for state intervention, and that no such justification exists (which seems to be Hutt’s view).

But it is also possible to believe that

4. Sadler’s report is unreliable because of multiple inaccuracies, exaggerations, and (possibly) untruths, that therefore it gives no reliable justification for state intervention, but that further more careful investigation would allow an unchallengeable case to be made for intervention.

Since Mr Sadler, his committee and the progress of factory legislation in pre-Victorian England seem to be at some remove from subjects on which you have previously contributed, and it is not immediately apparent that you have fully digested the body of the article, the following précis (more opinionated/argumentative than the article) may help you:

The report is of a Select Committee of the British House of Commons, to the House as whole, and was in support of legislation restricting the working hours of young children. The House debated the report and effectively took view (4) . In setting up a Factory Commission to investigate the same topic it rejected the report (and the evidence given to the Committee) as unreliable. It did so not because it did not believe the state should interfere in such matters (it went on to pass the 1833 Factory Act, which not only intervened in principle, but took care to establish a mechanism by which the state could intervene effectively in practice) but because it believed (from strong circumstantial evidence) that Sadler had been pulling a fast one, and could not be sure that some of his witnesses were not spinning a yarn. Explicit rejection of a Select Committee Report is unusual, and fairly damning. After the Factory Commission's report , Sadler's report came to be seen by his contemporaries as a 'dodgy dossier' (see quote from Gaskell in the article, or chase up Engels’ views as given in ‘The Condition of the Working Class in England’)

When subsequent generations started giving more credence to Sadler's report, Hutt et al had a greater incentive to counter this (by pointing out the contemporary objections) than those in sympathy with factory legislation; but the fact that it was Hutt who re-voiced those objections does not justify tarring others pointing them out (or those who originally voiced them) with the same brush. (One might as well say that since Hitler was in favour of building motorways any argument for building more motorways is ‘shaped to agree’ with National Socialism)

If you were 'shooting from the hip', then I suggest you remove your POV sticker ; if you wish to keep it posted, I would ask you to supply fresh grounds and or better arguments. Regards Rjccumbria (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:NYTimes Saturday Night Massacre Front Page.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ATTENTION: This is an automated, BOT-generated message. The bot DID NOT tag your file(s) for deletion, so if you would like to know who tagged the file(s), please refer to the edit history of each individual file. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ok, i have put your NFCC rationale into the template. we'll see if the "free only" mafia objects. Duckduckstop (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AnthroMimus. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

HazelAB (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AnthroMimus,

You should have access to Newspapers.com now. I think it's okay to leave the citations you have linking to articles at fultonhistory.com. However, the site's FAQ does include the following: "Q. Can I put a link on my site to yours? A. Yes. But PLEASE, use ONLY www.fultonhistory.com / Other pages and links change as updates occur." So that might mean some of your links might be lost at some point. (Quite a website, by the way - I'm glad to know about it!)

I think you'll like Newspapers.com and its clipping feature, which lets you clip and link to individual stories you have cited. All the information about clipping is on the Wikipedia:Newspapers.com site. Note that our free accounts through the Wikipedia Library don't include "publisher extra" content. All the best, HazelAB (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HazelAB: Many thanks for the reply. Yes, newspapers.com is quite addicting. I have been madly fixing up many (interrelated) articles in the past few days. It's actually quite an easy database to use (and clip). I have found, however, that it frequently mis-cites the newspaper (mainly with date, and year!). So users should be cautioned to actually look at the pic of the paper rather than depending on the labels supplied by newspapers.com for bibliographic info. (There is no place on newspapers.com, that I could find, to report errors.)

BTW, before linking to fultonhistory.com, I had an email exchange with the editor/webmaster and got express permission to link to the particular PDFs rather than through the main page plus search engine-generated url (which is kind of clunky). He expressly agreed with my proposal, and I have the email (I think) in case there is ever a problem. I probably should have done the "via=fultonhistory.com" thing but I was unaware of that function in the template. Maybe I will go back and add. It might get him some hits, and since he does the whole project at his own expense, it might be the right thing to do. But in the 3 years since I originally began using the database, I haven't seen any change of pages for the PDFs. I think his caution was more directed at the pages that link ot the PDFs of the papers than the PDS themselves. Cheers. AnthroMimus (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey AnthroMimus, I noticed your work on this article. Great additions! However, I also noticed that you haven't edited that article in a week. Is it okay if I remove the {{under construction}} template and clean up the article a little? Regards, epicgenius, presented by reddit.com/r/funny (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you, epicgenius, thanks. My work on Archibald Cox has taken much longer than I expected, but since I have a bunch of library books out I have to finish it before they are due (because the library is a schlep and it will be difficult to reassaemble the books). Be my guest in fixing up Hylan. As I said, once I see how you do it, I will conform later edits accordingly. And you can take down the template. I know how to put it up if I need it now, thanks. I did leave the article in the middle of a page-turner as they used to say. I hope to get back to it in a couple of days, maybe sooner to finish off that section at least. Cheers. AnthroMimus (talk) 06:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AnthroMimus: Thank you for your response. I'll get started on fixing it a little. Best, epicgenius, presented by reddit.com/r/funny (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for making the page "Squanto" a good deal better! I award you the Barnstar of Diligence. Hdjensofjfnen (UTC) 03:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud your efforts as well, I've needed to consult this article in the past and found it very lacking, and all this work is stellar and now very helpful. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, ɱ (talk). It was quite a nightmare reconciling all the conflicting commentary (which I tried to do fairly.) I also give free access links to all the primary sources and most of the seconary sources that are online. I hope to be done with this today. I have only a paragraph or 2 more. Then proofreading, cite checking, etc. I am somewhat worried that the bureaucrats will get at it on POV or too long or not encyclopedic, or whatever. If you come back in 6 months it may be hacked to pieces. AnthroMimus (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion he's a more lasting notable and encyclopedic subject than 9/10 of what I write, and more than most politicians today; I'm surprised there's not even more about him. I'm glad for all of your research and writing, I know the struggle between conflicting sources all too well. I can help polish if you want another set of eyes on it. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I applied for a Wikipedia:Taylor & Francis account awhile back ago. I never heard anything back about it despite Wikipedia:Taylor & Francis/Approved saying I was approved.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KAVEBEAR: Did you apply before they rolled out the new Wikipedia Library Card platform? If so, could you do me a favor and apply for a card and again apply for access to T&F: https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/ I promise I will attend immediately. I don't have any other record than those who applied via the new platform. Sorry for the hassle but it always happens when ppl get a new Big Idea for change. AnthroMimus (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi @AnthroMimus, does the subscription lapse? The authentication token from the original email says it was already used, but my account info shows no active subscriptions and I can't access the Walmart example article at Wikipedia:Taylor & Francis. czar 04:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

czar: I'm not sure I understand the question. Approved users are granted a 1 year "license" to use specific databases of Wikipedia partners. The example you referred to was a suggested method of citing to an article read on a particular database. The citation itself does not permit readers to access the article. If you are saying that you were granted access, I have no record of it. But the records I have access to only go back to Nov. 20. Can you give me more details? AnthroMimus (talk) 05:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and resubmitted another request via the new means. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samwalton9 (WMF): This is a point that seems to go over the heads of bot operators on Wikipedia, but it is generally considered a cardinal sin for an editor to edit someone else's written statement without some sort of indication. This is true even if it is done for a good reason, which I see that your correction to my comment to KAVEBEAR was. But this practice is so general in the articles that it seriously calls into question the reliability of a supposed "encyclopedia." But perhaps this is another relic from the day when people rather than algorithms practiced scholarship. It is still surprising and unnerving to have someone come to my talk page and edit my comments without showing that he did so, especially when he is a contractor to the Wikimedia Foundation. AnthroMimus (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AnthroMimus: While I sympathise with the request for a notification, and perhaps I should have left a note here to say that I had altered the link, it points to exactly the same place, just at the new URL which is guaranteed to continue working, which the old one isn't. I simply wanted to make sure that anyone who clicked through to the platform was able to use it as intended. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should consider "perhaps I should have" as the Millennials' equivalent of an apology. Who knows? If I am wrong in that Samwalton9 will undoubtedly change my comment without notice. What makes this who episode by Samwalton9, contractor to Wikimedia Foundation, ridiculous is that he goes about (I suppose) changing statements of other people, and yet no announcement has been made in general to the coordinators. Indeed messages from the Library Platform still direct recipients to respond to "https://twl-test.wmflabs.org/ ..." And not to "https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/." I guess Samwalton9 has not gotten around to correcting those who actually run the platform. AnthroMimus (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you seen remaining links to twl-test? If we missed some then I can get them fixed. I had a quick look and found one in the emails, so T161620 filed. Thanks, Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samwalton9 (WMF): Every single email I have gotten from the Library Platform directs me to https://twl-test.wmflabs.org/applications/... In fact the email addy is https://twl-test.wmflabs.org/applications/. I have gotten many of them. See, for instance, the comments on application-92. I have never received any notification of any sort of any change in the Platform's url, by email, or othrwise (excepting of course your edit to my comment on this page, if that is considered a notification). AnthroMimus (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

T161620 should now be all fixed - every internal URL, and the email, should be pointing to the right place - thanks for bringing this to our attention! And apologies for not properly communicating the new URL to you; with the tool being under active development we haven't got the procedures in place to make sure things like that always happen. We'll make sure coordinators are kept up to date with these sorts of changes in the future. Please dTW ion't hesitate to le(t me know if any similar situations arise. Best, Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samwalton9 (WMF): Now when I get a message, it says to return to the new url. When I do, it blocks me because I lack autorization. This is not a complaint from me alone. I have gotten the same complaint from an applicant who can't access directly. (Logging in again doesn't help.) A message has been posted on the platform asking me to respond to this problem but of course, if I answer it will only generate another email with a addy that can't be accessed. I guess all bugs have not been worked out. AnthroMimus (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, T163670 filed. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hobbamock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stephen Hopkins. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AnthroMimus. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Newspapers.com The Wikipedia Library.
Message added 04:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AnthroMimus, How are you? I was told your the T&L admin. I need some extra articles from T&L that I can't get access to. What is the mechanism to get hold of them, if it is available?. I was assigned a T&L account on the defense and strategy folder I think, and thought it would have covered what I was looking for. Unfortunately not. Is there any mechanism available to get hold of them. I think the problem lies in the fact T&L organizes it's articles within verticals, whereas here, by the nature of WP editing culture, it is horizontal. scope_creep (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep: What are the names of the journals you are interested in? AnthroMimus (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will give you a wee list tomorrow. Thanks for the quick responsescope_creep (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AnthroMimus, these are the articles with journal name I would like in the short term:

• 1. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02684528608431840 - No final solution: A survey of the cryptanalytical capabilities of German military agencies, 1926–35 by J.W.M. Chapman Intelligence and National Security
• 2. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08850609608435314 - Diplomatic solutions: German foreign office cryptanalysis, 1919–1945 by David Alvarez International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence
• 3. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0161-110491892827 - RASTERSCHLÜSSEL 44 – THE EPITOME OF HAND FIELD CIPHERS by Michael J. Cowan Cryptologia
• 4. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01611190903186003 - Enigma's Contemporary Witness: Gisbert Hasenjaeger by Klaus Schmeh Cryptologia
• 5. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01611194.2010.486257 - Enigma Message Procedures Used by the Heer, Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine by Dirk Rijmenants Cryptologia
• 6. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0161-118791862063 - NAVAL ENIGMA: M4 AND ITS ROTORS by Ralph Erskine & Frode Weierud Cryptologia
• 7. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0161-110391891801 - HOW STATISTICS LED THE GERMANS TO BELIEVE ENIGMA SECURE AND WHY THEY WERE WRONG: NEGLECTING THE PRACTICAL MATHEMATICS OF CIPHER MACHINES by R. A. Ratcliff Cryptologia
• 8. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0161-110491892890 - NAVAL ENIGMA: SEAHORSE AND OTHER KRIEGSMARINE CIPHER BLUNDERS by Ralph Erskine & Philip Marks Cryptologia
• 9. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0161-110591893735 - GERMANY'S FIRST CRYPTANALYSIS ON THE WESTERN FRONT: DECRYPTING BRITISH AND FRENCH NAVAL CIPHERS IN WORLD WAR I Hilmar-Detlef Brückner Cryptologia
• 10. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01611190601038225 - Wilhelm Fenner and the Development of the German Cipher Bureau, 1922–1939 by David Alvarez Cryptologia

The journals I'm looking to get access to are Cryptologia, International Journal of Intelligence and Counter Intelligence and Intelligence and National Security. Only for these article. Fundamentally what I've been working on and currently working. Thanks for the quick response. scope_creep (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep: OK, I'm going to talk to my contact at T&F. I will probably have to send them your email. Since you were approved before the middle of last November, your email is not on the new platform at https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/ (which is my only way to send such information to T&F; and it keeps your email addy private). So, in the interim, could you do me a favor and register on that new platform, and "apply" for the T&F Defense package. (You don't have to make a pitch, I will know who you are and that you already have a subscription.) Of course I can't make them give access to you for any additional journals they don;'t already provide to Wikipedia, but I'll do my best. AnthroMimus (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: I sm in the midst of drafting an email to my contact at T&F so I went back to the message above for details, and I am a bit confused. Are you looking for permanent access to 3 different journals or just to the 10 articles your listed (from the 3 journals)? I can't seem to find a list of the journals covered by the Defense/Security bundle of T&F, do you have a url for it? (Since taking over I have never had anyone apply for this bundle.) To let you know, I will ask for what you are seeking (once you un-confuse me about it), but I don't have the "juice" to make T&F do anything they don't want to, and they are, after all, a for=profit company. But I can be very charming to corporate types, to the extent that will help. AnthroMimus (talk) 04:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These 10 articles would do me for 6 months. Just the 10 articles. Articles 9 and 1 are the least important. I'm currently a member of Strategic, Defence & Security Studies which can be seen here:Wikipedia:Taylor & Francis/Approved The three journals above are not in that category, although I thought they would be. I don't know what T&L category the above three journals are. I was thinking of sending them a well crafted email to find out. I was originally trying to get several articles from Cryptologia, and everybody assumed it would be in Strategic, Defence & Security Studies category. It's byzantine. I've signed up to wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org as requested. scope_creep (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: OK I'm emailing right now. AnthroMimus (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coolio. Here's hoping. scope_creep (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Since I had to send your "application" in order to give T&F your email addy, I can no longer communicate to you through the Library Platform. So let me know if you get this: T&F says that you should have gotten access to the 3 journals as part of your Security Studies subscription. They are looking into what went wrong now. AnthroMimus (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. That is a real result. Funny, I thought it was weird at the time, that I couldn't get access to them. Curious how it works out. I'm looking forward to getting access to them. Excellent. I reckon somebody missed them of a list, when the T&L/WP partnership setup. Very early days, so it's a bit buggy. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: I have still not found a list of the journals that are supposed to be part of that package either on any Wikimedia site or T&F. So I am flying blind. (This is a typical situation for a Wikimedia, since it's a place run by ADD-riddled coders.)AnthroMimus (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me started. I used to be a coder, a software engineer, and I often wonder what WMF are actually doing. I read this morning on wikipediacracy site, that the have 232 or 212 developers working in WMF. I was wondering what they are doing. It certainly not doing any work in the interface or the editors. The whole thing seems to be wired together without any thought, or directions, and the user interface is getting really old and tired now. And there is still no editor. New Wiki products in private commercial industry are getting AI's built into them, which do a lot of it automatically. I read your comments, which I wholeheartedly agree with . One of many many problems which are not getting addressed. scope_creep (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editor? We don't need no stinking editor! After all, there are more featured articles on video games than articles in all the categories of world history put together. (That is a true fact.) And there are articles on every single episode of current TV shows (like Glee) but many of the major works of Nobel Laureates (e.g. Thomas Mann) don't even get a stub. So I would say things are working out smoothly without an editor. AnthroMimus (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Have you heard from T&F yet? AnthroMimus (talk) 04:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AnthroMimus, No not yet. I checked back yesterday, and they don't seems to have done the work yet, no joy. scope_creep (talk) 11:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep:: OK, I'll try to stir things up. They have been oddly slow recently. AnthroMimus (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yip, I was thinking about it. I don't know what the deal is. scope_creep (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: This is to let you know that I gently nudged T&F asking about whether anything has been done about your situation by an email sent just now. In my history of dealing with corporate types, I've learned that the best time to ask for something is by an email that greets the person first thing Monday morning. The person is usually less stressed from other mindless tasks that accumulate during the week. But we shall see. Mileage varies with each vehicle. AnthroMimus (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AnthroMimus, Well it would be cool to get them. I suspect it would have taken 10 minutes to instruct their publishing and content servers to link the three journals into the current bundle. So it is either management procrastination, complete chaos there, or they don't want to do it. WP is paying them, so I don't think it is management procrastination. I tried to get some documents from NARA, the US archives, but after a lot of promises, after 4 months, nothing appeared. So I really hope this happens. scope_creep (talk) 08:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Here is an interim suggestion until I get an answer: I have invariably found that I can get any journal article by emailing the author directly and asking for it. The author has no incentive in making anyone pay for it (they after all get no royalties); only the for-profit publisher does. Most articles have the email address of the "correpsonding author" in the syllabus (publicly accessible). If not you can find it on the website of the university or other institution he/she is affiliated with. Just tell him that you are writing article for Wikipedia. Most authors will send you a PDF immediately since their incentive, unlike the publisher, is to have their name and work widely distributed. Whatever we may all think of Wikipedia, many authors think it as important personal publicity. Given that there are so many different online publishers it is unlikely that most people will have access to all, unless they are affiliated with a very large university or institution. So getting articles directly from the author is a common practice. In this case there isn't even a hint of impropriety since T&F acknowledges that you should have access to these articles. I'll continue to press T&F, however. AnthroMimus (talk) 18:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that, with an article which I found during 2007, which I finally got from T&L, a couple of months ago. I contacted the man, a professor at UCL, and nothing came of it, after several exchanges of email. When I finally had the article, I rolled it into German Naval Intelligence Service. It provided a truly enormous amount of missing detail. I'll give it a go for David Alvarez. See how it goes. scope_creep (talk) 23:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: I have finally located the list of journals that are supposed to be bundled in the T&F Strategic, Defence & Security Studies package. It's found here: http://www.tandf.co.uk/libsite/pdf/subjects/securityStudies/Modern_Archive.pdf . According to this list International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence and Intelligence and National Security are included, but it looks like Cryptologia is not. I'm not going to point the omission out to the T&F rep when I again make contact this weekend (and maybe we can finesse inclusion), but I'm wondering, did you try to access the articles on your list from the first two journals? If not, could you try and let me know? Thanks. AnthroMimus (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AnthroMimus: AnthroMimus. No 1 and 2 are not accessible. I spoke to David Alvarez for No.2, who was only too happy to help. He is a Professor of Government at a California university, he had access to T & L through his work, but for some reason the article is locked, and he couldn't get access to it, or download it. He didn't have a paper copy either. It could be it is possibly corrupted. I sent an email to T&L to try and find out the progress on the problem, not even a support ticket was returned. scope_creep (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There something seriously wrong. If it is a data, I will never get them access to them, as David Alvarez doesn't have paper copies of them. I was banking on getting the article finished before the summer. scope_creep (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: OK, I will add details on possible corruption of #2. But are you also saying you are totally blocked from all articles in International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence and Intelligence and National Security? And am I correct in saying that the only way you knew about #2 was because someone else [namely the Prof who I won't name] had the same problem? (Sorry for being so tedious, but since I have to communicate by email, I have to get every detail right or the exchanges degenerate into discussions of the details rather than the overall point.) AnthroMimus (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try can get some article from one of those two journals. Geez, yip I can get articles from both of them. As soon as I selected the latest article from each of them, then the pdf button appeared, which isn't there for No. 1 and No. 2. No, I searched about 2 years ago, when I started the Pers Z S and searched a whole bundle of articles, and found that T&L had the most. Here is David Alvarez email, which I received back:

Reply Back------------------------------------

Mr. Watson,

I have electronic access to all the Taylor & Francis journals through the library of Saint Mary's College of California where I used to work (I am now retired). Normally, this connection allows me full access to articles in the International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, but for some reason that access is denied for the volume (No. 9) that contains my article on Pers Z.

I searched my electronic files, but cannot locate the manuscript version of the article as submitted to the journal way back when. When I retired and relocated to a small village in northern New Mexico, I significantly down-sized my life, including the electronic side of that life, and the electronic manuscript of "Diplomatic Solutions" may have been a casualty of the process.

I will see if I still have a hard copy of the journal and if I do I will scan the article and email it to you.

Thank you for your interest in my past work. There can't be more than a dozen people in the world who know--let alone care--about PersZ.

David

My email.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Bob Watson <xxxxx@hotmail.com> wrote: Dear Professor David Alvarez Let me introduce myself. My name is Bob Watson, and I’m an editor on Wikipedia with the username of scope_creep. I am currently trying to find an article on the AA/Pers Z S organization, which I hope you know was the diplomatic signal intelligence organization for the German Foreign Office from 1919 to the end of World War 2. The article can be found at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pers_Z_S

The article as it stands is full of facts, using released WW2 TICOM documentation, but doesn’t contain any critical analysis, which it really needs. I found out that Wikipedia was creating strategic partnerships with certain types of archives, like NARA, Oxford University Press and a bunch of others. I spotted one, which was Taylor and Francis, and signed up, got a bunch of articles, which I used as sources for missing information in other articles, like Wilhelm Fenner, and B-Dienst.

I need a T&L article to help provide that critical analysis which is at the following url: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08850609608435314

Under the agreement with them, I specified Defence category and the International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence unfortunately wasn’t in it. They have promised to fix it and so far no luck. I can tell you, I’m champing at the bit for the article. Would it be possible to get it off yourself.

19:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I can't get access to No. 1 either for that article. scope_creep (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: OK, just to make sure I got this right. You do have access generally (AFAYK) to International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence and Intelligence and National Security except for articles ##1 & 2 above and you have no access to Cryptologia plus another subscriber (who happens to be the author of #2 (but that is neither here nor there)) also cannot get into #2, raising the possibility that there is document corruption problem. Is that an accurate statement? (BTW, I get that journal article authors like to make puns, but the title to #1 rubs me kinda the wrong way.)

OK, while in advocating for access I am not going to mention this to T&F, but if you look at the list posted on T&F of the journals included in this package (http://www.tandf.co.uk/libsite/pdf/subjects/securityStudies/Modern_Archive.pdf) and linked through this platform under Browse Partners, the column "Volume Years From" column seem to indicate that the articles you are looking for are not hosted by T&F because they are earlier than the volumes included at least in this package? And since Cryptologia isn't on the list, it isn't part of the package either? (I raise this because there really is no hierarchy at Wikipedia for me to ask the question of.) AnthroMimus (talk) 03:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yip that is accurate. First paragraph is correct. Cryptologia is not part of the package, but I'm still pushing for it. I see that the range offered on the two journals starts the year above. I never noticed that about the Chapman article. I think he is taking the mick. He is a British historian. Keep at it. scope_creep (talk) 09:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Great job on starting your first article from scratch: Maryam Shahriar. It so awesome that you are covering non-Western Women and their work in the film community: works to combat the WP:BIAS that you describe on your user page! Keep up the great work. Sadads (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AnthroMimus, How goes it? Any word back from T & L? scope_creep (talk) 10:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

scope_creep Not only have I not heard about your "case" I have heard nothing from T&F on any subject since their email to me saying it was "strange" that you have not gotten access to the 3 journals involved. I made another stand-alone request for an update, and I have mentioned your situation in each email sending new applicants since then. But I get no response at all, on any subject. It is a marked change from the pre-incident relationship which I thought was very friendly. Since I evidently have lost whatever effectiveness I had, I am contemplating giving up this coordinator position (which, contrary to what you may think, is not filled with glamor or psychic payback). Perhaps someone else will be more effective. Or at least it will give someone interested in becoming a WikiBureaucrat (deo absit) something along with his list of reverts to make up a resume. Cheers. AnthroMimus (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have not heard anything from T&F either. - PKM (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PKM: OK, I will see what I can do. Can you let me know when you get access? Thanks. AnthroMimus (talk) 00:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will do! - - PKM (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS I haven't heard from Bloomsbury either... pppp

@PKM: If anyone should get access to the Berg Fashion Library, you should. But I am not involved in that (and therefore don't iknow who the contact at Bloomsbury is) and, hard as it might be to believe, I can't see who is in charge or even who approved you, although I see that your application was recorded as having been sent to the partner on May 13 (or maybe that was when you were approved--the new platform is not an explar of clarity). If you recall who approved you, it might be worth pinging him/her. AnthroMimus (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

why thank you! I have the email; I'll follow up. - PKM (talk) 02:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: and @PKM: Good news, sorta, I guess. It seems that Wikipedia's contact at T&F is no longer there and no replacement has been made. "We're working on it," as they say, and I'll keep you posted. AnthroMimus (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. It's not like I don't have more on my virtual plate than I can possibly get done. ;-) - PKM (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: @PKM: @K.e.coffman: There are probably others who are affected by this but since the platform does not make it easy for anyone to communicate with editors (or even track down who they are) once they are sent on to the "partners" I'll address you three who I know about here, so that any questions, comments, updates can be in one place. The short answer is I simply cannot get T&F to respond to me. The publisher and an editor have for a week both had my email alerting them that they have not approved editors for 1-1/2 months and that I haven't had my emails answered. They have acted in like manner: They do not response to my emails. I have conducted the highest "official" I know at Wikimedia (he has to be high since he is a paid consultant) and am awaiting suggestions. I really do not know whether and if so when T&F intends to continue the "partnership." AnthroMimus (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is something fundamental going on, at a very senior level. Possibly they have not been paid properly, they are seeing their business model being gubbed, or they don't like changes in the contract, or its an organization thing. Either way, it has been a sobering, net negative event. scope_creep (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{ping|scope_creep)) It's not just T&F. I have watched newspapers.com steadily put all the important newspapers (leaving only very small town papers) behind the paywall of their "premium" service which is not part of the subscription that newspapers.com grants Wikipedia. For profits undoubtedly realize that there is no one at Wikimedia in charge of regular commercial relations (or much of anything else), so there is temptation by some to renege. Frankly, Wikipedia has become so sprawling and unfocused that not only has the original mission become lost but also no one can really get their arms around it. So it is now the realm of crazed "policy"-enabled editors (who don't add any content) and bot-drivers who policy the texts without regard to the substance but rather to maximize their edit numbers. I really don't see a long-term future. Te idealism that an intellectual product can be created by anonymous crowd-sourcing has never been true, and probably won't last here either. AnthroMimus (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. I'm mostly working in Wikidata these days anyway; it's not like I can't find plenty to do. You could come play with us; it's all fresh and new there still. - PKM (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PKM but I'm actually migrating back to print. Peer-reviewed journals may be stodgy and elitist but they are not anarchy and whatever is published is not later desecrated by bots, self-appointed stylists with an agenda or ideologues. (Of course paper is subject to decay and libraries will probably be bulldozed over–probably sooner rather than later–but Maynard Keynes once said: "In the long run we are all dead anyway.") I have wondered why you don't submit to journals, scope_creep. Your research seems ideal for them (and probably sooner-or-later subject to all sorts of tags by WIKI:Policy wonks here, by contrast, not to mention the "improvements" that everything here is subject to). AnthroMimus (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Funny I thought about it already. When I was speaking to a friend who works at Glasgow Uni, in the business. He had a look at my B-Dienst article, and couldn't find anything like it anywhere, and thought I should publish it somewhere. But my background is software, and software consulting, so its not my natural home, and wouldn't even know where to start. scope_creep (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

scope_creep Once it's in Wikipedia (or anywhere on net including your blog) journals won't touch it. So you will have to decide to try journal before you write it. And you have to decide what kind of journal you are aiming for: specialized, academic, professional, general reader, etc. Then just look at the submission guidelines of the homepage of the particular journals you would consider submitting to. I am sure people in the field (such as the professor you had an email correspondence with) would be happy to give a look over and advice on where to send it. If you want any thoughts or more details from me, feel free to email me via the "email this user" button on the left column. (I'll give you my email address for ease of communications then.) BTW the B-Dienst article is a perfect example of something that will be prey to editors wielding WIKI:policies TOOBIG, TOODETAILED, DIVIDEINTOSMALLERARTICLES. It will take a while for the Visigoths to get to something as specialized as that, but they will come. AnthroMimus (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have a big article in mind I was planning to do, similar to B-Dienst. I think I will give it a try. scope_creep (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: You should be hearing shortly from Geraldine Richards, an Editorial Assistant, Routledge US Arts & Humanities Journals Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. She has the list of the 10 articles you flagged and is looking into it (or at least she is going to deal with you directly). AnthroMimus (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AnthroMimus, I just received them in email. I'm glad I've got them finally after months of waiting. In the meantime I'm still looking at writing for journals instead. Thanks for your help. scope_creep (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Good to hear. Here is a suggestion (if you don't mind my meddling): I would send a copy of the PDF of the Alvarez article to him (since he can't access it) with a note thanking him for his help, saying you were thinking of submitting your next article to journals and asking him for any advice he might have. AnthroMimus (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. I do it. scope_creep (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW @Scope creep: it is true you waited several months for the articles, but as I showed you above, arguably they weren't covered by the terms of the subscription you were granted. So we should be grateful for small things. AnthroMimus (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, publication of the journal Costume (and its back issues) has moved from Taylor & Francis to the University of Edinburgh. That was my main motivation for getting access to T&F, so if it never happens now I won't be terribly disappointed. I really appreciate your efforts so far, but don't spend any more energy on this on my behalf. - PKM (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PKM: Thanks for letting me know. (I wonder whether the change in hosting of that journal is indicative of other problems at T&F.) Anyway, I am just about to survey everyone who has been given access since January 1 to find out who has fallen through when they lost their Art & Humanities editor. So I am going to create a new toicp here (rather than use the unwieldy Wikipedia Library Platform which would require me to check for messages at each person's application history) and ask who has gotten access and when. I'll be contacting you too, since I want a comprehensive list. I will assume you haven't gotten access (so you don't have to respond), but if some time in the near future you do, I hope you will respond to that inquiry. AnthroMimus (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

A changeover in personnel has seemed to have caused confusion at T&F about who is supposed to have access via the Wikipedia Library Platform. In the hopes of ensuring everyone who was approved gets access I want to make a list here so I can advise T&F who is waiting for access. Please let me know if you have been granted access and if possible when (or how long you estimate it was after you application was sent until you got access). If you do not have access now, but receive it in the near future, can you also update your response and let me know when you got access? Many thanks (I am going to bild this list from most recent to oldest approvals). AnthroMimus (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. @Mramoeba: Can you let me know If and when T&F contacted you giving you access to their journals? (see above for explanation for this requiest). Approval sent June 20. AnthroMimus (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still nothing. Mramoeba (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2. @PKM: Can you let me know If and when T&F contacted you giving you access to their journals? (see above for explanation for this requiest). Approval sent May 22. AnthroMimus (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just got my credentials today. - PKM (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3. @K.e.coffman: Can you let me know If and when T&F contacted you giving you access to their journals? (see above for explanation for this requiest). Approval sent May 1. AnthroMimus (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4. @Scope creep: Can you let me know If and when T&F contacted you giving you access to their journals? (see above for explanation for this requiest). Approval sent April 6. AnthroMimus (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AnthroMimus, I have been granted access. It was 10 weeks from when I made the application to when I was allowed access. For 10 articles, it was roughly 4 months, from first request to delivery. scope_creep (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

5. @Hawkeye7: Can you let me know If and when T&F contacted you giving you access to their journals? (see above for explanation for this requiest). Approval sent March 9. AnthroMimus (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been contacted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's astonishing. This is a bigger problem that I thought. You should have contacted me @Hawkeye7: AnthroMimus (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I sent a couple of emails. It would have been better to contact you via Wikipedia, but your name was not listed as a contact. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: I looked into where the failure of communications occurred. First, when I got your application, I reviewed your edits and decided you so clearly desrved access that I sent it off immediately, without even asking a question (which I usually do to make sure editors know how to use scholarly journals and that they have selected the right package for what they are working on). On top of that the Platform designers failed to include my nick as the coordinator. The latter has been corrected, and the designers are considering ways to better accommodate editors with problems. (I realize that is little comfort to you now.) With respect to your problem, I am going to try to see if I can fix the overall relations between T&F and Wikipedia and get those who have not been dealt with access as soon as possible. I had hoped to make it one communication with a list of all the problems. But as you can see, I still haven't got much of a response. In a few more days I will collect the list of everyone who has a problem, and send it in with a request that I get some update so I can let you all know. Those who haven't responded will be dealt with at some later time or maybe they will be required to reapply. AnthroMimus (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do have limited access to T&F through a library, but I have to be physically present at the library, which means in practice that I can only access on weekends. I used some papers available through T&F for the articles on Project E and the British hydrogen bomb programme. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no doubt you ought to have access through Wikipedia, @Hawkeye7: The question is how to sort out what seems like a mess at T&F. (I would take the blame if it were my fault. But each time I sent a new editor, I sent along a spreadsheet of the cumulative referrals to them with the date of referral. I have no idea why this for profit company can't read a spreadsheet, especially since it was their idea t send the information that way.). As I said, I am only giving a couple of more days to straggling responders, then I will bite the bullet and have a long email chat with my current contact. (I think I might follow it up with a phone call. Old school usually is best for this type of problem.) It is not in my power to give you access or a date when you will get access. If it were up to me, you would have had it last March. BTW, I am told that Wikimedia is setting up a new platform that allows the coordinators to manage the subscriptions, not the partners. That would of course be idea for Wikipedia. I don't know how for profit publishers will think about that, however AnthroMimus (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

6. @MassiveEartha: Can you let me know If and when T&F contacted you giving you access to their journals? (see above for explanation for this requiest). Approval sent Febraru 28. AnthroMimus (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

7. @Carrite: Can you let me know If and when T&F contacted you giving you access to their journals? (see above for explanation for this requiest). Approval sent February 23. AnthroMimus (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was contacted by T&F on March 1. I think I have used it zero times so far. Carrite (talk) 01:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was on their site on March 8. Just dove in again, thanks for the prompt. Their search engine ain't JSTOR, that's for sure... Carrite (talk) 02:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

8. @KAVEBEAR: Can you let me know If and when T&F contacted you giving you access to their journals? (see above for explanation for this requiest). Approval sent February 14. AnthroMimus (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

9. @Sagaciousphil: Can you let me know If and when T&F contacted you giving you access to their journals? (see above for explanation for this requiest). Approval sent February 2. AnthroMimus (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I received access on 2 February but I may be a slightly different case as I have my own account with T&F for other journals that is not connected to WP? I do see that the additional access has only been set until 31 December which is the same as my own subscriptions though. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sagaciousphil: I wouldn't worry about the date discrepancy and possibly losing a month or so of access. If T&F is still partnering with Wikipedia and you are using their journals to make content, you will be renewed. That is, assuming I am still the coordinator and no new policies have been implemented. AnthroMimus (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

10. @JohnThorne: Can you let me know If and when T&F contacted you giving you access to their journals? (see above for explanation for this requiest). Approval sent January 9. AnthroMimus (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

11. @InformationvsInjustice: Can you let me know If and when T&F contacted you giving you access to their journals? (see above for explanation for this requiest). Approval sent January 5. AnthroMimus (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12. @Bertdrunk: Can you let me know If and when T&F contacted you giving you access to their journals? (see above for explanation for this requiest). Approval sent November 19. AnthroMimus (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13. @Kmzayeem: Can you let me know If and when T&F contacted you giving you access to their journals? (see above for explanation for this requiest). Approval sentNovember 19. AnthroMimus (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14. @Hmich176: Can you let me know If and when T&F contacted you giving you access to their journals? (see above for explanation for this requiest). Approval sent November 19. AnthroMimus (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15. @N2e: Can you let me know If and when T&F contacted you giving you access to their journals? (see above for explanation for this requiest). Approval sent November 19. AnthroMimus (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• T&F sent me an email to "confirm the activation of [my] voucher." on 29 Nov 2017. Let me know if you need anything else from me. N2e (talk) 12:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16. @Smerus: Can you let me know If and when T&F contacted you giving you access to their journals? (see above for explanation for this requiest). Approval sent November 19. AnthroMimus (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17. @Nableezy: Can you let me know If and when T&F contacted you giving you access to their journals? (see above for explanation for this requiest). Approval sentNovember 19. AnthroMimus (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was emailed on 11/29/16. nableezy - 17:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18. @Mehdi ghaed: Can you let me know If and when T&F contacted you giving you access to their journals? (see above for explanation for this requiest). Approval sent November 19. AnthroMimus (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no contact for me.--m,sharaf (talk) 04:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19. @Paulscrawl: Can you let me know If and when T&F contacted you giving you access to their journals? (see above for explanation for this requiest). Approval sent November 19. AnthroMimus (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Y @AnthroMimus: T&F sent me the activation today so I now have working access. Thanks. Mramoeba (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AnthroMimus. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AnthroMimus. My request for access to Taylor & Francis through TWL was just closed as "Not approved". Is there any particular reason why? --Xover (talk) 05:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xover: I left the following message on the on your application: "Xover : I am supposed to forward applications that show an editor will use the license to add content (with citations) to Wikipedia articles. While I see valuable contributions you have made by reviewing your edit history, I don't see evidence of substantive content additions. Can you point me to an example of content addition you have made and tell me which journals in the package you believe will help you in the future? Cheers." I received no response in over 4 weeks. So bowing to the pressure of the algorithm's pressure to make decisions within a reasonable time, I closed the application. If you want to answer question, feel free to apply again and add your answer. Cheers.

And as you have most likely not seen, for reasons that will imminently become obvious, I left the following response to you on the application (paraphrasing from memory): "Note that if there is an explanatory note or some response from me required, the Library Card Platform is not showing it to me." :)

Pinging Samwalton9 (WMF): I've seen this on several applications for several partners with different coordinators: the platform sends me an email saying there's a comment on my application, but looking at it I only see a status change (to "Pending" or, in this case, "Not approved") and no actual comment. I've also made similar comments to the one quoted here and received no response, so I'm guessing coordinators aren't seeing applicants comments either. If it's a known issue it appears to need to be better publicised; if not it should probably be a rather high-priority fix. The relevant example is here. --Xover (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xover: Whatever defects there may be in the wmflabs programs (which I have no control over nor ability to remedy—although I have to say the program seems to have worked for every other person I communicated with over the last two years on the platform), if you want me to consider your answer to my question, please follow my suggestion above.AnthroMimus (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my apologies. The above was by way of explanation, and letting the TWL team know about a possible technical problem, not by way of argument. I'm sorry that I wasn't sufficiently clear about that. If you do not find my previous contributions sufficiently substantial then my future plans are unlikely to change your mind. Access to T&F will not suddenly make me churn out weekly FAs, so it's better that the slots go to editors that can make the best use of them. Best regards, --Xover (talk) 06:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the issues you're getting with viewing comments User:Xover. I've filed T196888 and will start looking into this today. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, both of you. I'll follow up further on the Phabricator ticket so we don't needlessly spam AnthroMimus' notifications. :) --Xover (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Horst Dassler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gary Hall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Alessandro, Signor of Ottajano. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please, assume good faith when addressing other editors. I also noticed your behavior towards User:Accesscrawl in article Saki. We are here with one goal and we are all here need to be polite towards each other. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, alpha editors are all about "good faith." I suppose affixing non-not ability tags and needs more cite tags 5 minutes after an article first goes up is "good faith." Let me put it to you plainly Arthistorian1977. The use of tags instead of the use of the talk page is inherently aggressive. It says that the editor affixing the tag doesn't need to discuss the point with others, and indeed his assessment ought to prevail since there are supposed rules about when tags can be removed. In this case it was particularly galling. You made your determination, without discussing it, within minutes of when the article went up. You didn't need anything further to satisfy yourself that the subject was not notable and that the article needed further cites. Had you noted either concern on the talk page, I could have responded that this is only the first part of an intended article on a well-known and respected "New Criticism" critic of the 20th century. I saved the first part because I was having problems with my Mac and I was afraid I would have to reboot and lose everything done. But why should I have to explain any of this to you? You made the determination yourself.

I see you have reverted my blanking. And you continue with your tag. If you think I am going to spend one more moment on an article someone has tagged "non-notable" you don't understand how human incentives work.

I have written to you in "good faith." Why do you assume I am not writing in good faith?. And I assume others are too, except when they do things, as you did, that belie that assumption. The "welcome" page does not say the assumption is irrebuttable.

Your homily on being polite comes from an editor who has acted in the most hostile way he could, given that he seems to know so little about the subject. AnthroMimus (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my open library application - basically if Arts & Humanities isn't available would you be able to sign me up for Strategic, Defence & Security Studies? Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AnthroMimus. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AnthroMimus. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you access this book? Regards, ∯WBG^converse 17:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

T&F does not make this available for free to Wikipedia editors. However, I checked Worldcat.org and noticed that physical copies are widely available in college libraryies. You should try to see if a copy is available near you. AnthroMimus (talk) 09:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed in a catalog in a college a mile from where I live. AnthroMimus (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AM. Referring to this message;[1] any update? :-) - LouisAragon (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I am on top of it. Your turn is not up yet. I will message you the very moment it is available for you. AnthroMimus (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! - LouisAragon (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AnthroMimus, I have started a discussion over our Village pump with the aim of maintaining a public list of all editors who are granted access to any TWL resource. Your thoughts and opinions on the proposal are welcome:-) Regards, ∯WBG^converse

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Village Voice Film Poll, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages George Miller and Carlos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:17, 17 August 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) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hi, I was wondering about [2] I have'nt received any email from them?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello: Sorry this has taken so long. Here's the reason. T&F likes applications sent in batches, not one by one. (This will change next yesr, I understand.) Since my last delivery to them, you have been the only applicant. I had hoped others would show up so I set an arbitrary deadline of the end of November. Still no one has arrived. I got caught up in a writing deadline the last two days (and still no new applicants). So I will submit it tonight so they will have it before they arrive at the office tomorrow. I have no idea how long it takes them to process. Some times it's very quick (and it should be for you, since there will be only one). Some times it takes about a week. So you should be getting your token shortly. Cheers. AnthroMimus (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your help--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I just missed the bus... :( ... anyway appreciate your efforts, thank you.--Goldsztajn (talk) 08:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I haven't received an email response from [3], you had indicated they would contact me in 1 week(see above), any info is appreciated, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no influence on when T&F sends tokens. If you have not heard from then by the end of next week, let me know. I am not going to hound them in the middle of the holidays because they did not attend to one applicant. Cheers. AnthroMimus (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ok...XMAS!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,as you indicated above(its the end of next week) I have not heard from them and when I login I cant get to the articles on the list you had indicated[4], Happy New Year--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am sending an inquiry to T&F. In the future, could you direct all communications to me via your Wiki Library application on the platform. The info I need to deal with T&F is contained there. I don't communicate wit them using your Wikipedia alias. Moreoever, I rarely check here. I will let you know if I hear anything. Likely they will deal directly with you. AnthroMimus (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, could you take a look at [5]? Best, MrClog (talk) 15:32, 10 May 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) 02:28, 24 November 2020 (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) 00:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CRGreathouse, I apologize for what happened to your application. I drafted a note to you and intended to press the button "change status--under discussion", but instead hit the button "invalid." I have no idea what this new button is for, but I now know that once pressed, there is no recovery. The only thing you can do is to submit a new application. But I suggest you read the note I sent you to see if you want the subscription. AnthroMimus (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it turns out I don't need that collection anyway since it doesn't have math. Thanks for your help! CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I recently applied for the Taylor & Francis collection, but that's irrelevant. I saw that you were the one who handled T&F applications, so I took a look at your userpage. Needless to say, I agree with your stance on good articles, I find it absolutely ridiculous how many video games have good articles considering how insignificant they are. Sure, I do enjoy a bit of games here and there. But in comparison, only one Formula One car has good article status. Like, what? I know most of them are indeed not up to scratch, but I just find it just totally silly. Creedence Clearwood Revival doesn't even have GA status. Amazing. As for the other things mentioned on your talk page, I haven't really been here long enough to understand those. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 22:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to see Taylor and Francis has joined the library bundle!

As for what I was looking for, see this Wikipedia Resource request as an example: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request/Archive_132#Mythic_Galveston_book_reviews. The journals carried by T&F do include reviews of academic books (which Wikipedia articles cite). By getting these book reviews I can write a Wikipedia article about the book itself. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Mayima, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.   — Jeff G. ツ 10:05, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G. , please delete. I spent yesterday trying to add a notice of afd to the list, and frankly could not figure out how to do it under the instructions. I even asked someone on the community boards how to do it or how to delete. I would have deleted it myself but I was unsure whether that was the proper procedure. but be my guest. thank you. 2601:181:4701:2210:4517:B08:1AAC:940C (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G., I sent the above authorization from my cell phone thinking I was sending the msg by email. I have logged in on my desktop to tell you to delete the aborted AfD log attempt. I still maintain that the "Ron Mamiya" article should not be in Wikipedia for notability reasons (and failure of the sources), and I will try to follow your instructions above. AnthroMimus (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted thanks to Explicit.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to @Jeff G. & Explicit. I think it will be a long while before I try this again. I really cannot understand the rules. It doesn't help me that they are in various places and slightly different in each. AnthroMimus (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I want you to understand, so for the record, the rules for deletion here are documented at Wikipedia:Deletion policy and the instructions to nominate a single page for deletion in an AfD (Articles for deletion) discussion (including automatic nominations with Twinkle) are documented in section Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate a single page for deletion. Article Ron Mamiya was deleted thanks to Liz as an expired PROD on 2 June, a week after you PRODded it on 26 May. PRODs do not require AfD discussions, but are subject to a week waiting period to give the editors of an article sufficient time to cure serious problems. As for your misspelled page, I nominated it for speedy deletion per section WP:CSD#G1 on 27 May, but Explicit felt that section WP:CSD#G6 was more appropriate when deleting it 24 minutes later (and I agree in hindsight); the criteria for speedy deletions here (which also do not require AfD discussions but can be actioned immediately because the criteria are unambiguous and the problems are critical) are documented from the top of the page at WP:CSD. Any confusing parts of those pages may be discussed on their respective talk pages, at the help desk, or at the teahouse.   — Jeff G. ツ 11:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]