User talk:Seraphimblade/archive 17

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

Administrator changes   Reaper Eternal • ThaddeusB   Bogdangiusca • Christopher Parham • Necrothesp • Schneelocke • Siroxo • Sarah   Mentifisto → Lofty abyss   Interface administrator changes   Mr. Stradivarius

Bureaucrat changes   DeltaQuad   Kingturtle

  Technical news

• In Special:Preferences under "Appearance" → "Advanced options", there is now an option to show a confirmation prompt when clicking on a rollback link.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.

  Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee clarified that the General 1RR prohibition for Palestine-Israel articles may only be enforced on pages with the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice.

  Miscellaneous

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

FYI. I filed this appeal of an administrative action you took at WP:AE against me. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I encountered a puzzling edit of yours after noticing something unusual in an article. Here is your edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_United_States_presidential_election&diff=890339996&oldid=890314434 . I am very puzzled, especially because you are an admin. Why did you remove some titles but not the rest? Led8000 (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Led8000, I'm not quite sure what you mean or why it matters that I'm an admin; titles generally shouldn't be used except as clarification on first mention of an individual. If you mean that I only removed them in that particular table, that's all I was editing; if there are more in other areas of the article, feel free to take those out as well. So far as I can see, I got all the ones used in the table. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

You didn't get all of them in that table. I happened upon the article and noticed the table and fixed it. I didn't expect an admin to make editing mistakes like that. Led8000 (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I did miss a couple. Thanks for catching it. I'm not sure what you're used to, but here, admins are real human beings, and make human errors, like anyone. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 10, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

DeltaQuad, why am I considered a party to this case? I only made a statement as an uninvolved participant, and I am not, so far as I can see, listed as a party. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I screwed up the template for all 45 people. You are not a party. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

My apologies for the above section stating that you are a party. You are not, I made a mistake with the template. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to appeal against the page deletion for the Regional Studies Association - we are a scholarly learned society and no different from other society pages who are still listed eg Political Studies Association, British Sociological Association.DrAlexHolmes (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

DrAlexHolmes, I've taken another look, and the flagging as promotional content was entirely correct. In the last edit you made to the article, you used several unacceptable promotional terms ("pioneering", "leading", "world-class", etc.), and we do not permit marketese fluff like that. You also cited no sources at all. The article has been in a similar state since it was started all the way back in 2008; there is no non-promotional version to return it to. Wikipedia does not permit advertising or promotion, since articles are required to be strictly neutral, and it is irrelevant that other similar items may have articles. Each article subject is suitable or unsuitable on its own merits based upon whether or not there is sufficient reliable and independent source material about it to write a complete article. It may be that this subject is indeed notable, but promotional content is deleted on sight. When writing an article, ensure to stick only to facts supported by reliable sources (and lay off the fluff adjectives); don't "talk up" the significance of any journal or the organization by saying how important you think what they write about it. Especially as a paid editor, it is expected that you will take any time necessary to understand these requirements, and not again make unacceptable edits. It is also required that you make any edits to the talk page or a draft for other editors to review; do not directly edit an article for which you are being paid or move the draft you're currently working on to mainspace yourself. Again, since you're being paid for this work, the expectation is that you will know or find out these things, not require volunteer editors to explain them to you. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

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 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes   HickoryOughtShirt?4 • RexxS   Necrothesp   Bratsche • Kyle Barbour • Kzollman • Madman   Interface administrator changes   Pharos

Bureaucrat changes   Primefac   CheckUser changes   Reaper Eternal

  Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment concluded that creating pages in the portal namespace should be restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

  Technical news

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

  Arbitration

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

  Miscellaneous

• A request for comment is currently open to amend the community sanctions procedure to exclude non XfD or CSD deletions.
• A proposal to remove pre-2009 indefinite IP blocks is currently open for discussion.

 

Hello, Seraphimblade. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Hairy Bacon Bowl".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Lapablo (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I would like to ask you to reconsider your close of this AfD. As WP:CLOSEAFD says, your task is to decide consensus - and "consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments".

Seven editors commented in the AfD. Two (myself and Epinoia) felt it should be deleted and gave policy-based reasons why. The remaining five editors !voted Keep but with no policy based reasons whatsoever:

• Andy Dingley's !vote was bsed on the term having been used in the media, but that is not what our notability standard requires. It requires significant coverage and Andy Dingley did not assert that this standard was met. In fact, he didn't even claim that the subject was notable. He just said that ITEXISTS. See also WP:NOT#DICT.
• Andrew D just said that "Commonplace concepts like this should be properly covered by the world's greatest encyclopedia". See above: no claim that it is notable.
• Mervyn said that it is "the job of an encyclopedia" to record and explain memes and tropes like this. Well, no it isn't: WP:NOT, WP:N.
• Laosilika's !vote is literally one of the examples used at WP:ITSNOTABLE. Literally.
• Narky Blert said that they found the article useful (so WP:ITSUSEFUL.) They said it was suppoted by the sources, but as with Andy Dingley abnove, all the sources do is demonstrate that the term exists, not that it is notable for Wikipedia.

I respectfully suggest that you should have assessed whether any of the Keep arguments were "reasonable, logical, policy-based" when closing, and there is no evidence that you did this assessment, and indeed you can't possibly have done that assessment because if you had you would obviously have realised that every single Keep argument was baseless in policy terms.

I look forward to hearing back from you. Amisom (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It is certainly clear that you do not agree with the outcome here. And that's totally okay; consensus does not mean unanimity. All the same, there was a very clear consensus, among relatively experienced editors, that the article should be retained. While of course strength of argument does matter, others disagreed with your reasoning. It is not my place to supervote. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Cool. I've opened a DRV. Amisom (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Elitaliana. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. FOARP (talk) 07:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

PS - didn't read the top part of the deletion review template about discussing it first, apologies. Is there a reason why this was sent straight to delete that I missed? FOARP (talk) 12:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

FOARP, another editor after you very clearly stated that they had looked for sufficient sourcing and been unable to find it. That presumably means they looked at yours as well. It's not really my practice to in-depth judge things like that myself while closing an AfD (that's for the participants to do), unless they're actively in dispute, but having looked at what you presented now, your sources are either trivial and passing mentions, or highly niche sources of questionable reliability. If those were the best sources you could find about the subject, your argument actually supported deletion, even if it had a "keep" in front of it. Much better and more in-depth sourcing than that is required to retain an article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, looks like DRV was the correct way to go from the outset. FOARP (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I believe you have relisted the article in violation of wikipedia policies and guidelines for closure of afd. We have WP:CONSENSUS. Editors disagree with your assertion that the awards are not "well known and significant" and with the nominator's assertions. There is a clear consensus. You have also ignored the other editor arguments about this person's philanthropic GNG. Please explain. Lubbad85 (☎) 21:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Lubbad85, winning certain awards creates a presumption of notability, but that is a rebuttable presumption if sufficient sourcing to maintain the article doesn't actually exist. In this case, the nominator is explicitly challenging whether enough sourcing exists, so arguments talking about the award aren't helpful in judging whether the article should or should not remain. Ultimately, substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources is required; awards won creates a presumption that it likely will, but not an exemption if it does not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Not great reason to ignore consensus or no consensus and both would result in keep which is Wikipedia policy. You have two opinions on the afd and clearly you you let the minority view surpass the majority - which is not how the afd is supposed to work. So I am left wondering why. The article has been on Wikipedia for 13 years and basically one voice is being considered by you as a closer/relister. Lubbad85 (☎) 01:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry you disagree. Unfortunately, the AfD needs more input for a result to be determined. That input should directly address the concern of the nominator, that being a lack of sourcing, rather than veer off onto irrelevant tangents. The lack of such input does not make determining a result possible at this time, but hopefully after relisting it will. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. Lubbad85 (☎) 13:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

You closed the AFD on Olympia Nelson. Well, both the nominator, and one of the two delete voters were wikihounding me, when the AFD was underway. Both nominator World's Lamest Critic (WLC) and CommotioCerebri (CC) earned indefinite blocks for their disruptive behaviors a few months later.

CC has used over 6 dozen IP addresses to evade their indefinite block in order to disrupt my contributions. WLC spends a lot of energy wikihounding my contributions on the commons. Their most recent block evasion can be found here.

I think I do a pretty good job of assuming good faith, or giving the appearance I am still able to assume good faith, in the face of fierce temptation to do the opposite. But I think my obligation to assume good faith ends when someone has earned an indefinite block for bad faith disruption.

Therefore, I will say I think WLC's nomination of Olympia Nelson, and CC's endorsement of WLC's nomination were not sincere, good faith opinions. These two individuals were not putting the best interests of the wikipedia first. I believe both these individuals showed a long history of disrupting my contributions due to malice and bad faith.

As an administrator who closes AFD, you have to count on participants leaving comments based in good faith. Are there circumstances where you think a history of proven bad faith is a sufficient justification to overturn an AFD? Geo Swan (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• P.S. Re-reading the AFD I see I didn't start this article, after all. I think I did a lot of work to improve it. I believe that both WLC and CC did nominate articles I started for bad faith reasons. Geo Swan (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: Not really, no. When closing an AfD, I'm interested in whether or not the person in question made a sound, policy-based argument. I can't read minds. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry, you seem to have misunderstood me, I was not questioning your initial judgement. Of course you are not a mind-reader, and had no way, then, of knowing that those individuals could not be trusted to operate in good faith.

I request userification, talk page too, please.

Thanks!  Geo Swan (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Afraid not. A substantial part of the concerns raised during the discussion were BLP based. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• I requested userification at DRV. Geo Swan (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Seraphimblade. I am editing Wikipedia on Tencent Research Institute as my study assignment for this semester. I found that the draft page has been deleted by you on the grounds that there are unambiguous advertising or promotion. Could you tell me that there is a problem with the specific section, and help me improve that, I need to complete the assignment as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen L 2019 (talk • contribs)

Stephen L 2019, there are problems with fluff language, such as "a wealth of data and reports" (leave out stuff like "a wealth of"), "powerful research capabilities" (again, "powerful"), "China's first Internet research institute" (first according to whom?), and so on. The primary problem, though, is that the section on the organization's reports is massively excessive in detail, and seems to be pushing the findings rather than summarizing them. Realistically, this organization would probably be better covered by a paragraph or two in Tencent rather than an entirely separate article, but if an attempt at an article is to be written, it should be a brief summary, not contain exhaustive detail that treats what the organization said as actually correct. Do remember that article content requires support from reliable sources, and the organization itself should only be relied upon to a very limited degree. Most of the support should come from sources unaffiliated with the organization. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, Thanks for your suggestion, I will try to improve the language as much as possible. But regarding the content of the report, since we were asked to edit more than 2,000 words, If I describe the report briefly, the number of articles will not meet the requirements. I have searched a lot of information about this organization, most of them about these reports. About the article was deleted, my tutor suggested that I need to modify the relevant sentences and meet the neutrality requirements.

Stephen L 2019, please be clear that I am not, to be frank, concerned with the details of your assignment. Draft space is for the preparation of material for the encyclopedia, not web hosting for school projects. If the parameters of your assignment are incompatible with writing an appropriate encyclopedia article, you will need to do your assignment somewhere other than on Wikipedia. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, My idea is to show the research results of this organization as much as possible in the research report section. Therefore, I introduce the contents of the research report in the report and research section. Since the report content is very large, I have used as few sentences as possible to describes the content of these reports.

Then, if that's the best you can do, it sounds like your assignment is incompatible with Wikipedia and you'll need to put it elsewhere instead. Again, Wikipedia is not a free webhost. If you need somewhere to store your school projects besides locally, there are many free and low-cost cloud providers available to do that (some of the resources here might work), but this is not the place. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade,Our assignment is to write articles for Wikipedia, so we need to publish them on Wikipedia. If I can solve the problem of unambiguous advertising or promotion, can I publish the article?

Stephen L 2019, I'm a bit concerned if your class specifically involves editing Wikipedia, as it does not seem that it at all familiarized you with what the expectations would be while doing that. Being free of promotion is one requirement for an article, but it is far from the only one. Do you know if your class or instructor worked with the assistance of the education program? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, Sorry, I am not sure about that. If I need to publish this article, do you have any good suggestions for my article?

I have already said what you will need to do. You will need to write something entirely in keeping with Wikipedia policies, including using reliable sources, writing neutrally, and avoiding excess detail. That is, and will remain, the answer. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

This page should not be speedily deleted because...

1. The software is listed in List_of_optimization_software and (not by me) in Mathematical_optimization_software - I have merely added the missing links; without them, any such list of software doesn't make much sense. Isn't that the main goal of Wikipedia - to deliver information to interested audience? These lists and tables are very useful but only when they contain links to further information, not just the name of the software.

2. All other software listed in the above tables have Wikipedia pages - most of that software is commercial (Tomlab, Midaco, WORPH, Mosek, Gurobi, ...) - what is then the difference???

3. The new pages (PENNON,PENBMI,PENSDP) contain the very basic information of what the software does, together with a reference to published articles and link to a relevant website; I don't see any promotion there.

4. The software is free for academic users (some for limited time but with renewable license), it does not need any promotion

5. The software is the only available software for nonlinear semidefinite programming - so if researchers is looking for a software to solve their problems, they should be able to find this information on Wikipedia

6. The PEN* software has been around for almost 20 years, it's being used by hundreds of mostly academic researchers, has hundreds of citations in scientific journals; I believe it deserves a Wiki page with a basic information (just like all the software in my point 2.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkocvara (talk • contribs)

Mkocvara, no, providing an "about us" page is not the purpose of Wikipedia (not "Wiki"), nor are all subjects appropriate for articles. Articles should be supported by a substantial amount of material from sources that are reliable and fully independent of the article subject. If such sources don't exist, we should not have an article on the subject at all, let alone a whole string of them. (The fact that similar items might be appropriate for articles is not relevant). From other messages you've written, it's very clear that you're affiliated with the products in question, and while not prohibited, it is in practice very difficult to remain neutral while writing about a subject one is close to or has an interest in. Probably best to leave that to someone not involved. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, thanks for your reply. OK, I understand that you (Wikipedia) don't like when authors of software write about their products, even if it's supported by hundreds of (independent) citations. However, I would like to argue (for the sake of generality) that articles published in reviewed international scientific journals are reliable and, in some way, also independent sources, as they had to go through the scrutiny of the refereeing and editorial process. These are not self-published websites. Other reliable sources are, of course, the citations of the software in other articles by other authors ("our problem was solved by software xxx") such as https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?oi=bibs&hl=en&cites=8363910107581940526. But these, however independent, do not give much information about the software itself (algorithm used, what problems can it solve, etc).

The other point is that, in my honest opinion, a sentence "xxx is software solving yyy" is neutral. Michal.

  The Wikipedia Library

 

Books & Bytes
Issue 33, March – April 2019

• #1Lib1Ref
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (I only google her name and got information on published interviews and actors databases - like Actors Access and IMDB. I referenced everything under. If gives the idea promoting, I'm wondering why. I wrote based on many wikipedia actors pages of actors with less references/materials and less known than her. I also read the guidelines but couldn't figure it out what's wrong. How this can be improved instead of deleted? Thank you. Talent media (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Talent media, it appears that you may be being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia, including being asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment or internship. If this is the case, you'll need to make the required disclosures before we continue or you edit further. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade I am not being compensated direct or indirectly by any subject. It's just an attempt to contribute to Wikipedia with media/talent subjects and get to know the editing process here. Thank you Talent media (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for clarifying that. So far as the article itself, it looks like the "profile" style spam that we get very frequently. It uses inappropriate tone (e.g., reference to a person should be full name on first mention and last name thereafter, so "Scozzafave", not "Mia"), it cites a "resume" style site with relatively irrelevant "talking up" factors such as languages spoken (if actual third-party sources haven't seen fit to cover those, it's not important enough to go in the article either), and cites other inappropriate sources such as a site that explicitly states it's a gossip site. You'd need to stick to sources that meet the definition of reliability, and go with only information verified by those, written in a neutral tone. If multiple independent and reliable sources don't cover her in reasonable depth, she's not an appropriate subject for an article at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Seraphimblade,

Thanks for creating GCTools! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

I don't know if this is still being worked on, but it isn't currently ready for the mainspace.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 05:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Boleyn, this was created as a merge target for three articles for which the consensus at AfD was to merge into this single page. I thought my edit summary made that quite clear. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Please DO read the discussion. That's why the site exists. It is very unpolite to start a edit war without discussion! --Tamarin (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

?... https://centerofthewest.org/2018/06/29/karl-may-henry-carbine-myth/ ...? (against my better judgment...I don't even know if I'm allowed to type anything here...) is the link I just input something in English that's required by wikipedia for the Henry Carbine page?MagicRifleResearch (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

MagicRifleResearch, you certainly can post on my talk page if you like. The issue isn't being in English (non-English sources are fine if they meet the requisite standards), but with reliability. The piece you cite there is a blog post, so is not reliable for use as a reference. For reliability, we'd be looking for something in a fact-checked and editorially controlled or peer reviewed publication, not just posts on websites or blogs. It is very likely that this item is not notable. Most fictional weapons aren't; while there are a few exceptions, they'd be on the order of something like the Batarang or Excalibur, and this weapon doesn't appear to be studied in the same way as those are. Normally, heavy in-universe detail like this goes on a fan Wikia rather than on Wikipedia, and I do note that one exists for this author: [1]. Material like this is probably a better fit there; extremely heavy in-universe detail is not generally appropriate for Wikipedia. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Seraphimblade (I don't know how to make the name go in colour) for the explanation. That goes way beyond me. I'm long past my 'use-by-date' and the requirements are way beyond me. There are heaps of 'research papers' in German language, but all connected to a German Karl-May body, of which there are several, the scouring of which requires time I don't have. What happens to the text now? While the page was up I downloaded a wikipedia PDF of it and have uploaded it to my own Karl May website - the links to the places are clickable, so that'll do me. I've also included a link to the 'view history' page where the comparisons are visible, so people can still find the text. Other than that it'll take 'an expert' now. I also have put a 'help' request on my facebook page, so there might be someone out there who knows of the required item and knows how to properly drive Wikipedia (I don't) - your link goes to the Indonesian Karl May Club (very nice people) - the country of origin, Germany has Karl May Society, Club, Museum, Publisher, and more https://www.karl-may-gesellschaft.de/index.php, https://www.karl-may-museum.de/en/, https://www.karl-may.de/Startseite, and that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_May. And that's the end of my wisdom. MagicRifleResearch (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

You recently deleted a page of mine entitled "Shatown", stating G11 and A7 as the main reasons for doing so. However, the page was not self promotion, as I am not the artist the page was talking about, and I checked to make sure my sources were good. If there is any way I can edit this article to make it up to Wikipedia standards, please let me know, as I am willing to change the article to keep it up. Thank you for your time, and I hope to hear from you soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultralordmaximus2001 (talk • contribs)

Ultralordmaximus2001, "self" has no bearing on it. We don't permit promotion of anyone or anything. As this was a promotional article, please first note that if you are being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia, including being asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment or internship, you will need to make the required disclosures before we proceed further. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, thank you for your expeditious response, but I can assure you I am not getting paid to write this article. I'd be LUCKY if I was getting paid to write, but I am merely someone trying to make an article on this important artist. As stated in the article, she had enough accomplishments that other artists with articles have, including her own record label. Having a business like this is surely enough of an accomplishment to pass the biographical notability guidelines. Thank you again for your speedy response, and I hope we can work this out.

Well, no, that doesn't. What makes someone notable is extensive coverage in reliable and independent sources. So, you'll need to start from finding those. From there, encyclopedia articles should be written in a formal tone, not an informal "get to know ya" type. Someone is not "taken by the feds", they were arrested by federal agents; someone was not "released by the feds", they were released from custody or prison, and so on. (Also, per our biographies of living persons guideline, that type of claim absolutely must be supported by a solid reference, as must any claims about her going to jail). The very first sentence of the article is "ShaTown is an R&B/Hip-Hop artist/engineer/songwriter from New York that has such hits under her belt as "Ain't No Way", "Ain't Real", and "Selfish"." She does not have "hits under her belt", she has written songs. Similarly, leave out fluff like "coming out with a passion to pursue music." Stick to facts and leave out any promotional language, and stay to only facts explicitly verified by those references. If substantial amounts of such source material don't exist, she's not yet a suitable subject for an article at all, but even if it does, the article must be written in a way that's neutral in both tone and content. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

It appears you deleted a page I created- "Nawaraj Subba". I created the page by translating some parts of the corresponding article from Nepali wikipedia "ne.wikipedia.org/wiki/नवराज_सुब्बा" as requested by the translation project. I didn't pay much attention to the resulting page, except trying to make it resemble the original as closely as possible; and I published it before the translation was complete. It seems that precisely might have been its downfall. I don't remember much about what's in it. And I don't think I can review the content once it's deleted. So, I request you to kindly revive the article to a draftspace, so that I can go over the article once again and improve it to comply with the standards of English wikipedia. Thanks. Usedtobecool (talk) 10:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Usedtobecool, I don't normally restore advertisements or promotional articles, and it doesn't give me much confidence that you state in a very blase way that you're not paying careful attention to what you're doing. It is entirely your responsibility to ensure that your translations comply with English Wikipedia content policies before you place them into mainspace. Other projects have different content policies, so work beyond just translating may be necessary to ensure that happens. Is that something you're willing to do in the future? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade Thank you for the prompt response and I apologise for creating trouble. "I don't normally restore advertisements or promotional articles." If you are implying that I have/had any interests in getting undeserved promotional material into wikipedia, I assure you I don't. My only goal is to include more content related to Nepal into English wikipedia because I believe it is underrepresented. I have had problems with finding quality secondary sources to support my articles' deservedness because Nepal is underrepresented in the internet in general and I don't have good access to good libraries either. I don't create any articles on subjects that wouldn't meet wikipedia notability standards in a perfect world. (all this said only to assure you of my motivations) Which is also to say that the article is on a notable subject that can be made deserving of wikipedia international with some careful work on my part (so reviving it isn't wasting time in vain). "I didn't pay much attention to the resulting page..." I wasn't being "blase". I chose words poorly and conveyed a misrepresented account. The truth is, since the task was to "translate", I was conflicted between whether to sacrifice translation accuracy for wikipedia standards or vice-versa. I mostly chose middle ground. Frankly, I am surprised this article was so blatantly "promotional". But having gone through the Nepali article that was the source, I am confident you are right to assess it as such. "Is that something you're willing to do in the future?" That is exactly what I am promising- "... so that I can go over the article once again and improve it to comply with the standards of English wikipedia." If you have the time, I could ping you to go over it, once I think it's actually ready for the mainspace this time. Finally, if none of the above line of reasoning convinces you, please let me play the noob card (although I have been told it's reaching its expiration threshold). I have been actively contributing for less than 2 months. And I have restricted myself to low-priority and low-exposure content so my mistakes have limited damage. In light of that, I put it to you that, getting to see an article where I went horribly wrong would be an immense help in making me a better editor, even if the article never makes it to the mainspace again. Thanks again, for your work and your patience with me. Usedtobecool (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Usedtobecool, appreciate the explanation. I've restored to Draft:Nawaraj Subba. Since promotional material is subject to deletion in any namespace, I stubbed it to remove that, but the prior content is available in the page history. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

This page should not be speedily deleted because...

Hi Seraphimblade. This was my first time creating a wikipedia page. I put the page up in good faith and can confirm that to the best of my knowledge everything in there was factual and non promotional of % Arabica, all was based on accurate historical info etc. I am wondering if the page was deleted because of content or because it is not allowed for an organisation to create a page for themselves as a general rule? I contested the flagging of the "db-spam|help=off" tag and explained why - and also just requested a little help explaining what I would need to remove/change in the article to be accepted......so to then just be deleted with no secondary explanation leaves me unable to work out how to move forward and improve and get this right

Hope I have posted this on your page correctly !? As someone who doesnt code or have any experience on wikipedia I am finding this whole process extremely difficult and to have lost the article is also disheartening.

EDIT: I have also registered on my user page the Paid Contribution information as I discovered the hard way that this is necessary prior to publishing an article as I did

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stwtc (talk • contribs)

Stwtc, the article is full of marketese, even from the very first. It is not a "brand", it is a company. The very first section regurgitates a marketing slogan verbatim. The article is full of inappropriate external links (one link, to the company's official site, should be in an "external links" section at the end of the article.) It's written in an inappropriate informal, "get to know ya" tone (as an example, any person should be referred to by full name the first time they're mentioned, and by last name thereafter). Articles must be neutral in both tone and content, and that's very hard to do on a subject you're close to. Since you're being paid for your work, the expectation is that you will be able to do it correctly on your own, rather than ask for volunteer editors to help you with your paid project. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok thanks for this too - very helpful. I am happy to edit according to these guidelines, and am more than happy that volunteers are here to help. I am also happy to do the same for any other articles that I think I can give informed unbiased help to. I fully understand that need to come from an unbiased perspective, and I can also confirm that there are no false claims made in the article.....everything is a 'true story'

Is it acceptable to edit this accordingly and republish for consideration again? Many thanks

So long as you write it neutrally, sticking only to facts verified by reliable and independent sources, you'd be fine. But if it's promotional again, it will be deleted again. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

You restored AURYN to a redirect. As I noted on Talk:AURYN dozens of scholarly articles discuss the term. So, I disagree with your edit summary, that the term is NN.

I continue to think the article should be restored. Geo Swan (talk) 01:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Geo Swan, some of them mention the term. Notability requires in-depth coverage; no number of name drops add up to substantial coverage. Do you have any sources which do more than mention it briefly in something that's about a related subject? If no such exist, the topic is indeed non-notable, which may be why two people now have redirected the article for that very reason. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, You recently deleted an article of mine titled "All for the Game (Series)", it was my first time writing an article and I am a student who wrote this article as part of an assessment. I uploaded the article in good faith and once the request for deletion was made, made edits to the page (including more notable references) in order for it to meet WP:NBOOK, and satisfy the issues the users had with the page. As well as my page being deleted, my draft in my sandbox also was and I am confused as to why? I was wondering what it would take for me to make the article notable enough in order to re-upload it? As i believe with my edits my page was notable enough and met the WP:NBOOK standards? Thank you! Altinky (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Altinky, there was nothing particularly wrong with what you had in your sandbox, but since you'd moved the page to mainspace already, it was a redirect to a page that no longer existed. Those are routinely deleted when the pages to which the redirect points is deleted. So far as the article itself, you should review the AfD discussion for the concerns that led other editors to come to a consensus to delete the article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, one other thing to note: An excessively long plot summary can be a copyright violation and necessitate deletion for that reason. Plot summaries should summarize the plot; i.e. a paragraph or two, not retell it blow by blow. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thank you so much! I'll make those edits! I was also wondering if it would be possible for me to access a historical revision of the page to access some of my lost work? Thank you Altinky (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Since you seem to think you can resolve the problems that led to deletion, I've restored the previous versions to Draft:All for the Game (Series). Remember that prior to any future move to mainspace, you will need to be sure you've addressed the problems that the AfD participants brought up. You can even, if you want, ask them if they think your new version has corrected the problems. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help! I really appreciate it! Altinky (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I think they might have a point, they're not expressing it all that coherently but could they actually have a point? Some of this content appears to have been published in a reputable publication. Yeah, the IP's style is grating and yeah they do tend to get all CAPPY in a HUFF but...do you think there is maybe any way to work with them constructively?...honestly, I don't know either, just am hoping they'll slow down and actually read/comprehend our various posts. Shearonink (talk) 14:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Shearoink, if they'll settle down and stick to only suggesting material actually published in decent sources, maybe there is a way to figure something. But if they're going to continue this bit of "I'm right because I say I am", there's not much any of us can do. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Consensus can be such a tricky business... some folks just don't want to work, don't even like to work in a collaborative environment, they're simply out to right great wrongs. I had a feeling it would devolve into an inevitable end and looks like the situation is headed that way... Shearonink (talk) 06:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

 

Hello, Seraphimblade. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK ■ 21:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for speedily taking care of Anila Ali. It was one of the more, er, interesting articles I've come across during my time on Wikipedia! Marquardtika (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

And thank you for catching and flagging it, as well. And cheers! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

As of tonight there's been no reply by Pi314m in either the section listed in the above section title, or in the section you created following it. This is consistent with my last comment in that 3O section, where I said "IMHO the underlying problem is that—as I've shown in the preceding paragraphs—Pi314m believes that Wikipedia gives him the right to be the sole decider of the subject and contents of an article, even when it's partly about subject matter of which he knows nothing. That would explain why he has not responded to my subject-related comments in the Talk page section above ....". If you expect any reply from Pi314m before Tuesday morning you'd better "goose" him early tomorrow (Friday); his personal Contributions page discloses that he is an Orthodox Jew, and a holiday celebrated by Ashkenazic Orthodox Jews for two days begins at the close of the Sabbath on Saturday at sundown. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

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

 

  Administrator changes

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

  CheckUser changes

  Ivanvector

  Guideline and policy news

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

  Technical news

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

  Miscellaneous

• The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
• The 2019 talk pages consultation produced a report for Phase 1 and has entered Phase 2.

Dear Seraphimblade:

I need help with my Wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Michael_Cummings

I myself did not create the article. In 2010 or so, a librarian in a West Virginia public school did. She is deceased. Since, editors of journals having published my short stories and a former literary agent added to the page.

Recently, I made changes to the page, specifically uploading two photos of my book covers. But I did not follow protocol. Tags at the top of the page appeared, one after another, each worse.

I myself have not touched the actual article since this incident started six weeks ago, but have instead remained markedly earnest and cooperative and forthcoming on the User Talk page.

On my USER TALK, page you will see extensive dialogue between me and who seems to be only Wiki editor involved "Bonadea." She's well-informed and reasonable.

A few weeks back, she redrafted the page to sound encyclopedic, but she removed too much, I think. I had thought at the time, she was ready to remove the tags. Not so. She still feels the page is "autobiographical," even though I have dug up many links to reliable sources for her. Today, she's less and less available to help, as she is a teacher with a heavy class load.

I so much want the page to exist at its best. It would make me very proud, and I honestly feel who I am as a writer and what accomplishments I have made are of note.

But the paragraphs about my article become scant as the descend, and the entire page is lacking my most important accomplishments.

Again, I have available all links to the entirety of my USER TALK page.

My first novel won The Paterson Prize for Books for Young People 2009 (Grade 7-12), with a link to a reliable source. This a great award. But it is not listed.

I want acknowledgement of my receiving an Honorable Mention in The Best American Short Stories 2007, again a great accomplishment, with a link available.

I want acknowledgement being nominated for The Pushcart Prize - a fabulous achievement not listed.

I want all my 75 plus published short stories listed, not just a handful as shown on my page. All stories are reputably published is good university journals and commercial magazines. I want them presented in columns and set off my the lines of a box around them, as I seen on many sites.

I'v spent thirty years of my life - every day devoted - to becoming a writer of accomplishment. I sacrificed income and the great life experience of having a family I could support.

A few questions:

How quickly can you get to work on the Wiki page?

Do other editors get involved with you?

Will you willingly communicate with me here on your email page, rather on the USER TALK for all the world to see. I think "Bonadea" would prefer not seeing my comments, as I am the subject of the article, and would prefer working only with a professional Wiki editor.

I look forward to a prompt reply.

Thank you very much. LankyKeller (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello LankyKeller. I'd like to clear a few things up first. And I would very much prefer not to discuss article content via email or other channels, as those discussions are generally open for all editors to participate in. If you would like a resource with which to communicate by email, you can do that with our OTRS team. That aside, it seems that you are thinking of the article as "yours", and it is not. Article content is decided by a consensus of editors. You certainly are welcome to participate in those discussions, but they may or may not go your way. No one owns an article. It seems that you do want an excessive amount of detail listed, which we normally do not do. Wikipedia articles are required to be neutral, and it's really hard to remain neutral in regards to oneself or something you have a strong interest in. (That's not a dig at you personally; it'd be difficult for any of us, certainly me included. I doubt I could, for example, write about my grandfather and remain strictly neutral and objective, let alone myself). For example, I had a look at some of your edits to the article, and this one contained material like the following: "Ugly to Start With punctuates the exuberant highs, bewildering midpoints, and painful lows of growing up, and affirms that adolescent dreams and desires are often fulfilled in surprising ways." "This gritty, graceful novel explores the eternal question of whether we can — or should — go home again." (from [2]), and another edit here [3], with stuff like "Students are inspired by Cummings' talk on plot and characterization." That's book jacket fluff and an editorial about the students, which are promotional and strictly disallowed in encyclopedia articles. Bonadea is an experienced editor, so I would strongly advise listening to them. The Wikipedia article about you will not be a showcase of everything you've written or won, or say anything promotional or "talking up" about you, and I'm afraid trying to make it into that is very likely to be an exercise in frustration for you. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear Seraphimblade,

Thank you very much for your good advice.

Believe me, I had been listening closely to Bonadea. I understand. I get it. I've learned my lesson. But I don't want to be a punching bag any longer. I know you can understand that.

But I myself cannot touch the article.

Will you help, please? Will you roll up your sleeves and work on it, keeping Bonadea informed?

Believe me, sir, I have been chastised from every direction. Enough. Just help me fix it. You're listed under "Editorial Assistance."

LankyKeller (talk) 18:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• LankyKeller, I really think it's time you gave it a rest from canvassing many of our regular volunteer editors and admins for help over the Wikipedia article about you. You do need to understand that Wikipedia biographies do not exist for their subjects' benefit. Wikipedia decides what gets written and about whom, and clearly your only interest in Wikipedia is the article about yourself, and at the moment the article is now in danger of being deleted completely. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear Seraphimblade,

It seems that you deleted my page about Jean-Charles Diener on the 22th of may 2019. Could you please explain to me reason as it seems to me that I was respecting the rules and the code of Wikipedia. If you could provide me an explanation I would be able to change if needed. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippocampe77 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Hippocampe77, this article was deleted since it was promotional, and Wikipedia does not permit promotional material. This being the case, could you please clarify whether you are being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia, including being asked or expected to do so as a condition of employment or internship? If that is the case, you will need to make the required disclosures before we proceed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade It was not my intention to do an promotional article. I am not paid neither compensated for this. Jean-Charles Diener worked on the aquaculture and fishing industry and is famous for is work on it (I can provide neutral source on his work). The goal of this article is not to promote this person but to contribute to general knowledge about aquaculture and fishing industry. It seems that the way I wrote it didn't comply with the Wikipedia rules so I would like to change it, would it be possible to have access to the old text to change it and adapt it to a better way?

Dear Seraphimblade, I really want to improve my article in the way that fit with Wikipedia rules. As I asked you before, would it be possible to access to the old text, more it would be appreciated if you had any advice to give me. Thank you a lot.

Fikenn (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)== Arjo AB ==

Hi Seraphimblade, I created page Arjo AB on Friday which was deleted - for advertising. I had based the page on other company pages with history and products, but would really like pointers as to where I should make changes. I thought it was fairly neutral in tone, but if there are ways of getting the page tone correct, I'd be really grateful. I've read the Wiki guidelines in detail and am not sure where the changes to the page should be made as it was basically a history - perhaps more references etc? Thanks in advance for any help or comments! Fikenn (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Fikenn, the article was promotional, which violates our policy of neutrality, and also did not use reliable and independent source material to show notability. If substantial quantities of reliable source material do not cover the company (substantially, not just a mention or name-drop), the appropriate course of action is to refrain from writing an article about it altogether. The expectation of paid editors is to research and be aware of what's needed here on their own, and not to be a time sink for volunteers to need to explain it to them. Also, had you familiarized yourself with the rules, you would have known that an editor with a conflict of interest should not themself create an article in mainspace, or move a draft there, but should instead have any drafts reviewed by articles for creation. Please ensure to follow that process if you attempt to write a new draft. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying to add a company page as part of a project to add local companies. I see it is strangely locked for editing. Would you be able to help me please. Firstly by unlocking it - and secondly I would appreciate your help in adding the article and ensuring it wouldn't be considered spam or advertising, I appreciate this is a common concern from admins. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FaikimAcnt019 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

FaikimAcnt019, it would be considerably helpful if you could link to the page you're talking about. I am not particularly good at reading minds. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Haha sorry Seraphimblade, that was pretty stupid of me... It's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AutoProtect — Preceding unsigned comment added by FaikimAcnt019 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

FaikimAcnt019, that page is not protected. However, you are not yet autoconfirmed, since very new editors should not be creating articles directly in mainspace. Please draft the article at Draft:AutoProtect, and submit the draft via articles for creation when you believe it is ready to go into the encyclopedia. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Seraphimblade, thanks for the reply. It does however bring up a message that it is locked when I try to create the draft. It says: "This page is currently protected so that only administrators can create it." I'm messaging yourself as it tells me you were the one to lock it? "00:36, 25 May 2019 Seraphimblade talk contribs protected Draft:AutoProtect [Create=Require administrator access] (indefinite) (Repeatedly recreated) (hist) (thank)" Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FaikimAcnt019 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

FaikimAcnt019, this draft was clearly the target of a spamming campaign. It is clear that you are being paid or compensated to edit regarding this subject. Please make the required disclosures before we continue further. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

...and wanted to say again how completely I agree with it. I don't believe there was even a minor point that I thought was mistaken. Nice work. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I want to say how much I appreciate your comments on the WMF/Fram fiasco. I agree with everything you have said on the various threads with regard to that issue. You certainly do speak for me and save me the trouble of trying to express what I think and feel. Rather than the WMF getting all these comments from hundreds of editors, which they probably don't even read, would it be possible for us to vote for you as our liaison or spokesperson or Ombudsman or such like and act as the representative of the en wikipedia community to present our case to them?Smeat75 (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Smeat75, while I appreciate the sentiment, I'm not running for ArbCom again. It took up a lot more time than I had to spare, and while it was certainly a learning experience, it was not one I particularly want to do again. If you would like to contribute to the discussion, please share your thoughts there. Strong community opposition is the one thing that we can give. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you wrote here. I have made similar points on Wikimedia-l, both with regards to the present situation and more generally. --Pine (✉) 20:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for closing; you beat me to this by about 2 minutes. I was going to close with the action of removing the comments (replacing them with (Redacted)) which I think is a reasonable reading of the existing consensus on the page and the prescribed enforcement of the remedy. Anyway if you'd like to modify your close I think that would be great, but if not whatever. ~Awilley (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it's probably better at this point to just leave it alone. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Newyorkbrad. I do not see an urgent issue that requires intervention here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi good afternoon you recently deleted a page of mine “Rikhi Thakral” who is a famous philanthropist and businessman in Southeast Asia. It was full of references and links to all the major events so I am unsure why this action was taken. I have read all the guidelines and don’t see how this was advertisement for him as it was written objectively. Thank you! TravisM416 (talk) 07:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

TravisM416, no, it is not written "objectively", from even the first sentence onward: "Rikhi Thakral is a distinguished businessman and philanthropist in Southeast Asia." Leave out fluff like "distinguished", state only facts. It goes from there to a title inappropriately called "Experiences and achievements" ("Business career" would quite suffice), and that entire section is essentially a CV. Then a bunch of total fluff, which also inappropriately uses "Mr." and "Mrs." instead of just names: "His personal philosophy is highly influenced by the teachings of the Sikh religion, particularly in the sense that one should always set aside a percentage of time, effort and money to do “God’s work."[13] In addition, his parents were highly moral and religious teachers for him as well. Mr. Kartar Singh Thakral, his father, Mrs. Narinder Kaur Thakral, his mother, and uncle, the late Mr. Harbans Singh Thakral are primarily responsible for his current life philosophy which is heavily based on the principle of thinking about those less fortunate than yourself.[14]" The rest of the article goes on in that same hagiographic, "look what a great guy he is" type of tone. That is unacceptable promotion and violates our requirement that articles be neutral in both tone and content. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

SeraphimbladeThanks so much for the feedback, honestly. From a Cambodian perspective, he would warrant the word "distinguished" based upon his philanthropy and contributions to society, as well as his accolades. However, if it seems to be fluff for you, I can certainly edit it. As for your other comments, again, this is written from a Cambodian point of view, so some of the words and phrases are different (i.e. Experiences and achievements is the usual title we use in business here). I am happy to change those as well if it makes it more internationally objective. I certainly didnt want it to come across as a "look how great of a guy he is" and I will review and rewrite the tone and content. My question is now how to proceed. How do I access the original document to make the appropriate edits and resubmit to you to ensure that it follows the guidelines. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TravisM416 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

TravisM416, please understand that we don't write from a "Cambodian point of view". Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. The vast majority of that article was completely at odds with NPOV and was promotional. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade Thanks for the quick response! I understand that it must be from a neutral point of view. I was just hoping to explain the reasons behind some of the phrases. So my question is now how do I proceed? I want to fix it so it meets all international standards and is 100% objective. Where can I access the original text? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TravisM416 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

You can certainly take another go of it. Just make sure to avoid promotional language, fluff adjectives, and any kind of "talking up" of the article subject. Stick to facts verified by reliable sources, and present them in a neutral tone. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade For some reason, I didnt get a notification saying you had responded. I wanted to ask where I could go to try again? Do I have to reupload every single document/picture and text or can I edit it from the page? Obviously it would be much easier to do the latter, and it would take a fraction of the time. Is it possible to temporarily republish it with the caveat that I edit it quickly to ensure it meets all standards and doesn't contain any fluff. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TravisM416 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade Hi I wanted to give it a go again. I have cut down on all the flowery language and I have kept it objective, so hopefully there shouldnt be any problems. Could you check it to make sure it's ok? If you see any problems, definitely let me know and I'll fix it right away (but hoping it's fine!) Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TravisM416 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

TravisM416, did you not see anything above? Articles are not a CV. We refer to an individual by their full name on first mention, and their last name only on subsequent mentions, so "Thakral", not "Rikhi Thakral" after the first mention. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade You dont have to be snarky. I really am just trying to follow the rules. So I cannot list any awards or honors? To me, that helps make one "notable." Does Wikipedia have a different definition? I sincerely want to know.

No, we don't do a laundry list of awards to make a person look good. If they actually won a notable award, that may be appropriate to mention, but just "Hey, look how cool they are!" type stuff is not permitted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade Fair enough, that makes sense. But now another user did a speedy delete of the page. Did you think it seemed promotional? I thought it honestly was neutral and I tried to remove any language that made him seem "great."

You will need to speak to the administrator who did the new deletion regarding why they did. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I have just read at User talk:Katherine (WMF) the message written by Guettarda, but copied to that page by you. It says things which for years I have been convinced are obviously true, but which in my experience most people don't see at all. Thanks for attempting to pass on an understanding of those important points. (Whether the attempt succeeds or not is another matter.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Well, I think more thanks due to Guettarda, for putting it so well. But hopefully, that helps to get across why they're seeing such an uproar over what they've done. Katherine has seemed willing to engage (and, as some folks brought up at the discussion, the seriousness of the situation may have been getting lost as it got passed up the chain at WMF, until she started to hear directly from a bunch of people), so hopefully that works to bring some clarity. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I hope so too. And of course you are right that most of the thanks are due to Guettarda, but thanks are also due to you for your action in bringing it directly to Katherine's attention, rather than relying on her to notice it amidst the vast walls of text that have been posted about this. And finally, I agree with you about Guettarda "putting it so well": she or he expressed it more clearly than I think I would have done. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, definitely, thanks for putting on Katherine Maher's page. I was thinking about turning it into an email, as someone suggested on the FRAMBAN page, but this was a much better idea. Guettarda (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I know there has been a lot of raised temperature during the ongoing Fram saga, but I feel like I owe it to you to thank you for the leadership that you have provided during those discussions. I really do appreciate it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi there,

You deleted the page for Staysure on 28th June, due to 'advertising.' The page includes citations, examples and sources and is not advertising the brand. Instead, it aims to be factual and everything stated is according to facts alone. If you could explain in what way the page's content is subjective or 'advertising', that would be appreciated.

Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JellyYo (talk • contribs) 09:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

JellyYo, as the page was removed as promotional and shows hallmarks of paid work, please first clarify whether you are being paid or compensated to edit this subject, including being asked or expected to edit as a duty of employment or internship. If so, you will need to make the required disclosures before we continue. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. How do I make a disclosure if the page has been deleted? I do need to disclose and didn't realise I needed to do that, my mistake. If you could point me in the right direction with this, and hopefully retrieve the page back once I've disclosed this, that would be brilliant. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JellyYo (talk • contribs) 15:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

JellyYo, the disclosure is made on your user page, not the article itself. The instructions for how to do so are at WP:PAID. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I've now added the disclosure to my talk page. Does this mean that Staysure's article page will now be reinstated? Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JellyYo (talk • contribs) 15:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

JellyYo Well, you've been straightforward with me, and it's not the worst I've seen, so I'll restore it as a draft, as it looks like Staysure itself might actually be notable. Please keep a few things in mind. First, since the conflict of interest exists, we editors in that situation should not create or edit articles in the main encyclopedia (including making ten edits and waiting four days to duck around the autoconfirmed requirement). Instead, the article should be created and edited as a draft, at Draft:Staysure (in this case I'll do that shortly with the material that was deleted). Once you believe the article is ready, you can have it reviewed by a disinterested editor (I'll put a template on the article that you can just click a button on to request the review). If they approve it, they'll take care of moving it to the encyclopedia; otherwise they'll let you know of any issues. Secondly, we're generally looking for information from reliable sources. It's not particularly appropriate to include an entire section about a company's advertising campaign based just upon promotional material from the ad agencies. While occasionally ad campaigns become extensively noted by disinterested sources (take Where's the beef? or the GEICO ad campaigns as examples), that's an exception rather than the rule, and we normally wouldn't have any material recapping ads or promoting the ad companies. That was the primary issue with the article. Finally, sources like "Builtvisible" or "Founded" should be avoided; we would be looking for sources that don't have an interest in promoting the company. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

  The Wikipedia Library

 

Books & Bytes
Issue 34, May – June 2019

• Partnerships
• #1Lib1Ref
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Your reversions were undone because while you might think the references are adequate, WP:Attribution and WP:NPOV Are clear that Opinion references must be directly attributed. Particluarly interviews must be qualified where the interview material isn't presented in the form of a source transcript or isn't otherwise verifiable outside of the source presenting the material. Remember that it is opinion until and unless there is evidence that proves someone said something, otherwise you have to say "According to X, Y said...". 24.155.244.245 (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Use the article talk page to discuss the article, not this one please. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

You are involved in a dispute resolution. you can access it here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Conservapedia 24.155.244.245 (talk) 07:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The filing has been closed. --MrClog (talk) 13:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes   Johnuniq • Kosack • Valereee   Ad Orientem • Ched • Gadfium • Jonathunder • Nick • Yelyos   Bald Zebra • Beetstra • Doug Bell • Journalist • Ruud Koot • Splash • Voice of Clam   Interface administrator changes   Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes   RickinBaltimore   Oversight changes   Beeblebrox   RickinBaltimore

  Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the page Wikipedia:Office actions has been changed from a policy page to an information page.
• A request for comment (permalink) is in progress regarding the administrator inactivity policy.

  Arbitration

• Editors may now use the template {{Ds/aware}} to indicate that they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for a topic area, so it is unnecessary to alert them.

  Miscellaneous

• Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
• The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

  Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Nice work about the Oakland Buddha.  --Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Farang Rak Tham, much appreciated! Also thank you for adding the metadata values to it; I never remember to do that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Seraphimblade, re: this edit, I'm not exactly clear on what the issue is. A film itself can be used as a reference for its own plot. That's WP:PRIMARY at its most acceptable basic, because simply observing plot points doesn't typically take us down the path of abuse. We don't usually ask for additional references for a plot summary beyond what the film would tell us. What am I missing here. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, please use the article talk page, not this one, to discuss the article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Nah, I'm not jumping through extra hoops for no good reason. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you again for trying to help. I always value WP:3O assistance. Vey sorry to say that we are being mocked. I'm not very good at reporting people, but I've done what I can now to try to put a stop to these shenanigans. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Seraphimblade- As you have read, Emma Chamberlain is a YouTuber. I have zero personal or professional connection to her, she is simply one of many YouTubers I watch with some regularity. Recently, Time Magazine included her in their fifth annual "The 25 Most Influential People on the Internet." The New York Times and Atlantic Monthly hyped her as the funniest / most important person on the internet. W, Allure, Forbes, many others have been writing positively about her. I found that she had a Wikipedia page, thought it was somewhat poorly written and lacked recent information. So I added relevant career information about her. Then you deleted most of it. I added back a small amount of that information, then you decided to delete even more information than you originally deleted.

Now I am trying my best to learn and comply with citation templates and the best practices methods for organizing information, so I get some of the deletions. At the same time, Chamberlain is at the apex of YouTube popular and critical acclaim. I get that there is prejudice and confusion as to the notoriety / celebrity status of YouTubers. As the first person picked by the new Fashion and Beauty Partnerships director at YouTube, Derek Blasberg, it's pretty clear Louis Vuitton is reading her metrics. Forbes couldn't get over her social media engagement numbers in comparison to "regular" celebrities. The point is that the information I think is relevant is commensurate with her status and in the public interest. Examples you deleted that are significant: Her father was / is a YouTuber (he is a painter), which is unusual and significant as he helped her film her first video, and any athlete, musician, or actor who had a parent in the same field would be mentioned. Her first collab with Cody Ko, a long-time established YouTuber, is significant. Her appearance in David Dobrik's vlog squad is significant as he is one of the top YouTubers in the world. These are two collaborations that are no different than famous musicians collaborating with each other and thus worth mentioning. The issue of her leaving school early / becoming a YouTuber is part of every biography. Snapchat announcing she will premiere Creator Stories along with the likes of Serena Williams and Arnold Schwarzenegger is significant. Why can't her podcast be mentioned? The thing went to #1 in 50 countries. Is that not relevant? Her re-uniting for collabs with The Dolan Twins (minus James Charles) is absolutely part of her fame, the entire YouTube worldwide community views it this way, YouTube put them at #1 and #2 trending, so of course this is relevant.

I don't know what you consider "puff." I referenced Time, the New York Times, and the Atlantic, but not Elle or W or dozens of other magazines that have been hyping her. I did not include several of her collabs or Teen Choice awards or being on Nickelodeon. I only included Louis Vuitton as a branded partnership, but not Hollister, Brandy Melville, UNIF or about 30 other brands she repped as that is boring and this is not a marketplace or advertisement. But her Louis Vuitton collab with model Karlie Kloss is one of the most viewed on their channel, and Louis Vuitton has been bringing her back for additional events. They want their IG metics with her to get likes, which is what she does for them, more than most of the famous "models" here on Wikipedia who have longer pages. Also, you said to remove unreliable resources. OK, YouTube videos from verified YouTube creators are not considered reliable resources? Should the New York Times, Atlantic, and Time be the sole sources of third party information?

The level of interest in her and acclaim from the most well-respected American periodicals warrants additional personal and career information on her page. Other YouTubers to compare her to, and thus the level of information on her Wikipedia page: Liza Koshy, Lily Singh, Jenna Marbles, Casey Neistat, David Dobrik, Gabbie Hanna. Or the other persons on the Time 25 Most important list.

I see that you have been at Wikipedia for 10 years and 40,000 edits, so you have seen everything. Just hoping the level of detailed information here on Wikipedia about Emma Chamberlain is being evaluated for the merit of any notable person who is at the top of their field, which is what all those articles you deleted are saying about her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilith Before The Garden (talk • contribs)

Lilith Before The Garden, I would believe you on that; I've actually noticed that fan editing often shares a lot of the same issues COI editing does. No, YouTube is not generally a reliable source, as the vast majority of YouTube videos do not meet our criteria for what would make a source reliable, such as fact-checking and editorial control. Nor does it matter a bit about fame. The idea of an article is to just state facts as reported in reliable sources, not to show how brilliant someone is (even if it happens that they are). So, indeed, some of your source material might be reliable, but it is still necessary to present any material from it neutrally, and to make sure it's not getting into the point of excessive detail and trivia. Also, while I did discuss it here this time due to you being rather new, discussion about a particular article should be held on the article talk page, in this case Talk:Emma Chamberlain, not user talk. If you want a particular editor's input (such as the one who made an edit), you can ping them to get their attention. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I have now learned there is an Emma Chamberlain Talk Page, there is a Teahouse page, you told me about Pinging editors. Just trying to fit in here. There are so many slight variations on the proper format to cite sources I am still confused but learning. I also still believe that quantity and detail about information is still somewhat subjective, one person's view that something is trivia or puff may not be consistent across even experienced Wikipedia editors. I am looking at many pages of equivalent YouTubers and current celebrities and the amount of info is all over the place, some "minor" persons have much more detail than more famous people. I am just trying to be somewhere in the middle. Thank you again for your insight. (not even sure I am doing my signature correctly here) Lilith Before The Garden

Lilith Before The Garden, if you have specific portions you think I was wrong on, I'm happy to talk about those with you, but let's move the discussion to the article talk page. As to the rest, don't worry, we were all new once. So far as signing (and do sign, if nothing else you picked quite a neat username), put four tildes at the end of what you write, like so: ~~~~. That will automatically place the signature and timestamp: Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, got it. Thank you. I've posted a few items over at EC's talk page for review that I believe are justified for inclusion on her page. Lilith Before The Garden (talk) 01:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

 

On 13 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Oakland Buddha, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after a Buddha statue was installed on an Oakland traffic median, neighborhood crime dropped by 82 percent? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Oakland Buddha. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Oakland Buddha), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Seraphimblade, I appreciate your patience in guiding me, regarding an appropriate image for Martha Rockwell. The United States Ski & Snowboard Hall of Fame has provided me with an image that they consider themselves to be the "owner" of. While the photographer is unknown, the back reads "1976 Olympic Tryouts publicity shot", which implies that it was a US Ski Team picture of the time. Do you see a way forward with an image of this provenance? I'll look for your reply, here. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

HopsonRoad, it sounds like that's an orphan work, and those are an immensely frustrating area of copyright. The copyright holder would still be the photographer (unless that individual assigned copyright it to someone else), even if the museum owns that particular copy. The museum does not have the authority to grant a free license release. That being said, if it's a "publicity image", it may have in fact been published. If you could find that the image was published before 1977, and it was not published with a copyright notice, it would be in the public domain. (This would not be true, however, if it were published in 1977 or after; that's right at the borderline of when that was true). But you may have hit upon a usable one, if you can find a place where it was indeed published and there was not a copyright notice. You might find the Hirtle chart helpful in navigating what's PD and what's not; it can be a tremendous pain in the ass to try and figure out. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Seraphimblade. I understand, since I last wrote, that it's in the USS&SHofF archives, so that probably means that "fair use" is not an option? Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, no, it couldn't be used as nonfree, but like I said above, it may not be nonfree. If you can find a pre-1977 publication of it without a copyright notice (which there's a decent chance of; many pre-1977 publicity/advertising images were published without one), it's in the public domain, and then it's a free image. And of course, we can use free images all day long. So, that's my advice, is try to find out if it got published before 1977 without a notice of copyright. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The CEO of my company is a published author and industry leader, for whom I'm trying to setup a Wiki page. However, I want to set this up correctly without violating the terms. It's a clear conflict of interest as I am employed by the person who I'm trying to help setup a page for. I read the guidelines and added a request for review to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Biography/By_profession&stable=0#N%E2%80%93S

I want to make sure I did this correctly. I also want to know if it's possible to connect with an editor who can write an unbiased review. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allisonchaney (talk • contribs) 22:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Allisonchaney, what would help is to note at your request what reliable and independent sources have provided in-depth coverage of this individual. (Not just name-drops or mentions.) If such coverage does not exist in regards to this individual, an article on them would not be appropriate until and unless it does. If it does, knowing where to find it could very much help someone who answers your request. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your closure of the thread at WP:AN. The only thing I'd add to this is that dispute resolution has been tried repeatedly, not "never":WP:NORN [and I begged for help], 2x RfCs on Talk:Order_of_the_Arrow, multiple attempts to solicit opinions from others, discussion galore, and WP:AN. Framing it as if I or others haven't tried anything else is misleading.

But, in the grand scheme of things, thank you. Buffs (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for that help. Yes, I can now see it has uploaded correctly. Thank you too for explaining the rationale for one free image used in these circumstances per article - that all makes sense to me. Fortnum (talk) 06:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Seraphimblade thanks for your input on the Richard Wayne Lewis page move request. It has now been 7 days and there seems to be no objections to the page being moved. Would you like to do the honors? Essayist1 (talk) 11:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I've found a great emerging topic on the web. I'm interested that someone should help me developing encyclopedic content about it. The page represents a company, Webzed. A Multinational Company that mainly focuses on Technology Development. Could you please help me generate article without being in conflict with

regular policies. Will be thankful to your first reply!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilbert Ryan (talk • contribs) 07:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC) 

``` Thanks Seraphimblade............. Thank-you for your help. I have re uploaded a few of my images to wiki using the following tag; {{PD-anon-1923}} Did you help in this effort or was it someone else? Two of the re-uploaded files are in the wiki article Harry Broome, one is Harry Broome and boxer Henry Orme. Check it out if you like and make sure the tag I used fits the image correctly. I think it does. I'd love to speak with you by phone on my dime if you have an interest. I'm always uploading images, but frequently they get spit out cause I don't know enough about copyright laws and wiki tags.

Thanks again for your help!!!!!! By the way, I've been working with wiki for five years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by dcw2003 (talk • contribs)

dcw2003, I think I just gave you some advice, but I'm glad to hear it was helpful. Like I said, if you're ever unsure or have a particularly complex or unusual case, asking at MCQ is a good way to get some more eyes on it. I don't generally talk by phone, but you're certainly welcome to leave a message here if you should need to. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 03:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

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

 

  Administrator changes

  Bradv • Chetsford • Izno

  Floquenbeam • Lectonar

  DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

  CheckUser changes

  Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

  Oversight changes

  Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

  Technical news

• Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
• The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

  Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

  Miscellaneous

• A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.

Re: "Essentially, several arbitrators are saying that WMF "own" Wikipedia, when they don't, and shouldn't. They just own some hardware. Saying WMF owns the actual website would be a fundamental change to our licensing policies; as of today, while contributors agree to irrevocably license their contributions under a free license, they do still own them. WMF does not own the site, it owns some computers."

First of all, the WMF doesn't own the computers. They spent $2.3 million USD on hosting last year.

Secondly, they own the domain names. Thirdly, they own the trademarks on "Wikipedia", "Wikimedia" "Wictionary", the globe made out of puzzle pieces, etc. Fourthly, and most important for this purpose, they are legally responsible and can be sued if The WMF allows any of the following to remain on the site after the WMF is notified of it: privacy violations, child protection, copyright infringement, systematic harassment.

We, the content creators, don't own Wikipedia any more that the creators of videos own YouTube or the people writing tweets own Twitter. True, all of those sites would fail if the users abandoned them (and Digg did fail when the users did abandon them) but that doesn't make the users the owners. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, Guy Macon, saying they own some computers may have been a simplification of saying that they own contracts for use of some computers. But since they are in control of both those contracts and what is done with those machines, that seems rather a distinction without a difference. So far as owning the trademarks, I already said at User talk:Worm That Turned that they do indeed control those, but saying that's "owning the website" is rather empty. If YouTube's video creators, or Wikipedia's editors, left en masse, those who control the trademarks would be left with an empty shell, as happened with Digg. But more importantly, it is the content that makes those sites what they are, and neither YouTube nor WMF own that. Saying they "own" the sites because they own the trademarks is like saying Toyota owns my car because it owns the trademark rights to the nameplate on it. That may be, but without the tires or engine, it's no longer a working car at all. They don't own the parts that actually make the thing go, or that actually make it what we call "a car", and WMF does not own what makes Wikipedia, well, Wikipedia. No one comes to Wikipedia to see the name or the puzzle globe. They come to see the articles, and those are owned and produced collectively by Wikipedia's contributors, not the WMF. Take away the content, and there's no more Wikipedia. Change the logo, and very few people would notice and even fewer would care. So, as to who owns the essence of Wikipedia, that being its content—well, you, and I, and thousands of others, do. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 12:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

You are entirely correct about the essence of Wikipedia, but you are dead wrong about the legal concept of "ownership". If you buy a Toyota you own it (that is to say you own A Toyota, not that you own Toyota Motor Corporation). If you lease a Toyota, then Toyota owns it. See General Motors EV1#Who Killed the Electric Car? where GM took back cars from unwilling leaseholders and crushed them, refusing to let the leaseholders buy them at any price.

Perhaps I can make you understand by putting it a different way. We both agree that if YouTube's video creators, left en masse, those who I claim to be the owners would be left with an empty shell. But it would not, as you claim, be an empty shell owned by the video creators. The video creators wouldn't be able to sell it. The video creators wouldn't be able to reinstate any banned video creators. Legally and practically, the WMF are the owners of Wikipedia, and your claims to the contrary are wishful thinking not grounded on the reality of the US legal system as it exists today. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's possible we're talking past one another. You're talking about ownership of the name Wikipedia, which I certainly won't dispute is indeed with WMF. I'm more talking about what most people refer to when they talk about "Wikipedia"—the encyclopedia itself. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 02:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

And I agree. I agree enthusiastically. As long as you are talking about what most people refer to when they talk about "Wikipedia" I am with you 100%. My problem is when you take it out of the context of what most people refer to when they talk about "Wikipedia" and try to assert that it is equally true in the context of Arbcom/the community vs. T&S/WMF making content decisions. Like it or not, the WMF allows us to make content decisions. They have no legal obligation to do so. They really don't. They also have the technical ability to override any community decision, which they demonstrated with Superprotect.

The one thing we have going for us is the fact that the board of directors has been consistent in sending the following message to the WMF: "don't exercise your legal authority over content other than dealing with copyright violations, child pornography, etc. If you are not willing to let the community determine content, you are fired, and we will hire someone who is willing". --Guy Macon (talk) 04:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

An extraordinarily long but sparsely-advertised survey that has a lot of questions about global strategy, community health (amount of abusive editors, sexual harassment, ability to accommodate culturally different editors, sufficiency of local civility policies et al) & T&S, software quality et cetera. Oone of the questions is :- In what ways, if any, can the Wikimedia Foundation do more to support the safety of individuals, resolve disputes, or protect against abusive community members? Leaving a note, in case you are interested, because I believe the results will be weaponized during the upcoming consultation ..... ∯WBG<sup>converse</sup> 15:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

meta:2019 Community Insights/Thank you seems to be the sole on-wiki documentation. ∯WBG<sup>converse</sup> 16:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, uh...well, holy hell, that's about a monstrosity of a survey. You should tell people to make a full pot of coffee before they go to look at it; one cup wasn't enough! But, I did go through it (if anything, mine might have been longer than yours; when I ticked "yes" to being an admin and involved with a local user group it gave me questions specific to those things), and my only conclusion is that the questions are often so poorly designed and vague that they're not useful for a single thing at all. Not to mention the sheer length means they'll only get responses from people with time and patience enough to actually sit through it. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 16:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I was hoping to get your advice or assistance in relation to recent changes to the lead of the article, Parental alienation, and how to edit that article without triggering an edit war. (Or perhaps whether to walk away, given the dominance of a couple of editors who have strong feelings on the subject.) Thanks. Arllaw (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Arllaw, I note on the article talk page, you made this comment: The inappropriately reverted former opening is biased and replete with error, misrepresenting what the sources actually say.... When making an assertion like this, it is important to provide details. What language do you believe is biased? Why? What information is erroneous? What's correct? What references support that assertion? Which references does it misrepresent? How does it misrepresent them? What do you propose as a correction? Details like that can be a good starting point for discussion, but the comment just seems to be asserting that your version is superior to the other and that the other is of poor quality, without going into detail as to why. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 02:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand that the talk page is difficult to follow. Discussion of the lead was started on August 26, at Talk:Parental alienation#Opening paragraph 2, considerably before any proposed changes subsequently made -- so while I agree that discussing this sort of issue in detail is generally helpful, it didn't work this time around. There are two editors who have strong opinions on PA, and whose accounts reflect little other activity, Skythrops and DrPax. Editor Skythrops chose not to participate in that discussion. DrPax disappeared from the talk page over the same period after posting a comment suggesting that he edits using multiple accounts and being asked to elaborate. They both returned at the same time to support reversion, despite having made no prior comment or objection. There would have been more discussion of specific issues had any questions or objections been raised. Editor Guy Macon has made some comments some of the issues I mention below, as well as some other issues with the article, including how efforts to implement even minor changes are transformed into epic battles.

In regard to the present lead, DrPax and Skythrops have been insistent that PA be described as "a distinctive form of psychological abuse and family violence". That's not consistent with the content of the article and, at the time the most recent discussion started, there was not even content within the article below addressing whether or not PA was a form of child abuse. I added content about the abuse theory as an attempt to try to avoid this type of situation, so that a corrected comment about abuse could justifiably remain in the lead.

The source for the "distinctive form of psychological abuse and family violence" phraseology is an article (footnote 4) that, within its own title, contradicts that assertion -- "Parental alienating behaviors: An unacknowledged form of family violence". If the position were generally held, it would be acknowledged. Within the Wikipedia PA article (footnote 70), one of the co-authors of that original article is referenced in relation to the continuing controversy and, while citing to the footnote 4 article that he co-authored in support of the point, states on page 142, "The arena of parental alienation is fraught with controversy, particularly regarding the question of whether parental alienation is a form of child abuse and family violence." (As for the other sources, Duhaime's law dictionary (5) does mention PA as "abuse", but it's not an authoritative source nor does it support the broader assertion. The Baker article (6) speaks of self-reported consequences of perceived PA, but does not include language or assertions that support the claim made in the lead.)

Similarly, the claim about "the most common cause" is not supported by the sources cited, nor is it supported by the content of the article. Claims about the consequences of PA in the lead are overstated, albeit toned down a bit from past versions. Mention of controversy has been deleted from the lead. Arllaw (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Arllaw, I've taken a bit more in-depth look. First, this edit: [4] was totally inappropriate. You should absolutely not be "closing" a discussion you have participated in; it should remain open for anyone else who would care to participate unless formally closed by an uninvolved editor. For the rest, it appears there's been quite an extensive discussion among the editors already involved, so you may want to consider a request for comment on the subject to gain input from previously uninvolved editors. But don't attempt to close the RfC yourself; if a formal closure is necessary, someone uninvolved should be the one to do it. If once the RfC has run for 30 days you think formal evaluation and closure is needed, you can request that here. Of course if a clear and unambiguous consensus is reached, that may not be necessary. Remember to phrase your RfC request neutrally; attempting to "push poll" in any way is not permitted. If you'd like to draft the RfC request in your userspace, I'd be happy to look at it and point out any problems before you actually put it up for comment. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 15:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that information. I was trying to address the problem of having multiple overlapping discussions, with editors participating in multiple discussions, which seemed to be making a convoluted talk page and discussion of editing issues even harder to follow (what editor Gary Macon fairly characterized as "walls of text"). It won't happen again.

On the issue of a request for comment, I very much appreciate your advice and offer of assistance. Given Gary Macon's fair points about the article at large, though, perhaps the issues he raises merit discussion in advance of a RfC about the lead, as I think that issues pertaining to the lead could be subsumed in a resolution of those larger issues.

Thank you very much for taking the time to provide this sort of guidance. I appreciate how much time it must take, for you to support the project in this manner and through your other efforts here. Arllaw (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for getting in touch just now, I was not aware that I was violating any rules and am sorry if this was the case. Can i ask why the external links were deemed inappropriate? I added some facts to a few pages, and then added citations which directed to relevant external sites (where the facts can be found in the anchor text), I didn't add any external links to actual text (at least not intentionally, I might have made a mistake!). I would be grateful for your assistance as I don't want to make the same mistake again. Thank you!TomLambertLDT (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

TomLambertLDT, first off, your username indicates that you are paid to make contributions here, which includes being asked or expected to edit Wikipedia as a duty of employment or internship. If this is the case, you will need to make the required disclosures before editing any more. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 20:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah ok, I didn't know about that, sorry. I will make sure to disclose on my user page before editing any further. Thank you for your help!TomLambertLDT (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

TomLambertLDT, thanks for doing that. In addition to that, the site you are linking to ([5]), is not a reliable source, but a commercial booking site. It is not appropriate for general use as a reference, so please stop adding "references" to it. If you would like to add information about particular events, the event's site would be a more appropriate source, but an independent source (which is reliable per the criteria in the above link) would be better than either. Continuing to add links, including as references, to this site, is not acceptable. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 20:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Seraphimblade, I have now updated the User Page, is that all ok now? Re linking to the website: although part of the website is a commercial booking platform, we also include long-form content to inform our users; this has facts and information about a range of events. We also have a blog which is not linked to the booking platform. Would it be permissible to use these pages as appropriate references? We always hope to create content that is useful and informative for readers, so we feel like it would benefit some wiki pages to reference usTomLambertLDT (talk) 09:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

TomLambertLDT, the answer to that is "no", and will remain no however the question is rephrased. Wikipedia is not a means to drive traffic to your site. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 19:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I've been staying out of the conversation on their page because grave-dancing is inappropriate, and that's how it'd appear if I weighed in. But I'm concerned enough about their recent comment that I felt a need to voice my worries to you. Stating their belief that certain editors, including myself, are agents of the PRC is a significant part of what landed them with a block. Now, not only are they restating their accusations, they're doing it in a way that has me nervous about WP:OUTING. This edit is the one that worries me. If they are going to propose on their user talk page that the identities of specific editors should be investigated, as part of their belief that Wikipedia has been infiltrated by Chinese agents, this seems like grounds to revoke their talk page access. Simonm223 (talk) 12:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, dear! My page about A digital marketing company named Redblink was deleted, though i followed all the guidelines, as per other marketing companies already added on wikipedia, if others exist why cant our company have a page , how can i reinstate, there are many marketing companies which have pages on wikipedia but they are not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larsonreever (talk • contribs) 04:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Larsonreever: So, a few things. Your message was misplaced and not under a new heading. The text at the very top of this page explains how to place it properly. Secondly, there are very few people in this world who I would permit to call me "dear", and you aren't one of them. I suggest you knock that right off. Finally, other stuff exists is not a valid argument. Articles are appropriate on some companies and not others; it depends on whether they meet the notability criteria. However, promotion of any kind is not permitted. Paid editors are expected to not be a time sink for volunteers, and to learn on their own how to properly edit Wikipedia and follow our policies. It is not my responsibility to, free of charge, help you edit for compensation. If you cannot do that, you may not edit, and if you continue to make inappropriate pages, you will be helped not to edit. I have deleted the spamvertisement you reinstated; don't do that again. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 05:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  The Wikipedia Library

 

Books & Bytes
Issue 35, July – August 2019

• Wikimania
• We're building something great, but..
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• A Wikibrarian's story
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Borderlands_franchise_characters

We do not delete main character lists for series. Please fix this immediately.Googinber1234 (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Googinber1234, we have deleted them, do delete them, and from what it appears now, will delete this one. So, I'm afraid your statement is incorrect. If you want to write extremely detailed, in-universe material, please consider using a Wikia or other external site; Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for that. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 15:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't making an observation, I was making an ultimatum. You are to STOP deleting them. Googinber1234 (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Or what? Not a very good ultimatum without that. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 16:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

You will stop your destructive practices. This is not a suggestion, a request or even an order. It is a narration; I am precluding you from defying this based on fundamental values of what is correct. Googinber1234 (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Stop pestering participants of that AfD, Googinber1234, or you will be blocked from editing without further notice. El_C 17:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for previously contacting you via email. I'm writing to you in regard to the Sooqr Search article (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Sooqr_Search) that was deleted for the unambiguous advertising and promotion reason.

I now made sure to include the paid contribution template to my talk page, which I didn't do initially (I instead clarified the affiliation in the publishing reason). Yet I would also appreciate if you could let me know if that was the sole reason for deletion or there were other influences too, such as its tone.

Also, if you have any other advice you deem relevant it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dessels1th (talk • contribs) 07:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Dessels1th, I see you contacted me about the large amount of "Nope" that was this article. To put forth what shouldn't have been there, there was an installation guide, which is an absolute "no". Wikipedia articles indicate what something is, never a guide to using it. That aside, however, the article seemed to consist of a large number of "About Us" links, with very few reliable sources in backing. Reliable and independent sources really are a requirement, not a nicety. Do substantial amounts of reliable and independent source material back this subject? If not, we shouldn't have an article about it at all. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 12:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Understood, @Seraphimblade:, thank you. I also noticed that the edits I had previously made to other articles were removed. What are the reasons for that? Dessels1th (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

That wasn't me who reverted those. You'd need to discuss it with the editors who did. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 14:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Just FYI, I put the {{paid}} template on this user's userpage. They used {{connected contributor (paid)}} on their talk page, but that's for articles. Nonetheless it was a good-faith effort to disclose. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I certainly wouldn't fault someone for putting it on the talk page rather than the user page, that was obviously a good-faith attempt to disclose. Thanks for letting me know. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 18:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

You need to read the Mathematica article after your edit which takes only relevant content out of the page. You leave only a single sentence (the lead summary line) that attempts to describe what Mathematic is and what it does. The rest of the article talks about how you interface to whatever it does, how fast whatever it does happens, how you can share whatever it does, how many things connect to whatever it is, and how many versions of whatever it is there have been. None of that describes Mathematica itself. You may feel there are better ways of describing it, but please don't just delete the only attempt to summarize what it is, that others have worked on, without suggesting an alternative. Also, labeling a dense summary of its functionality which contains no adjectives, adverbs or superlatives as advertising and spam, is not helpful to the discussion. I tried to address your more reasonable comment about it being too long by making it more concise and moving some content. Greenmatter (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Greenmatter, final warning. An unreferenced, bulleted feature list is advertising. When unreferenced or self-referenced material is challenged and removed, it is mandatory for each challenged statement to be referenced by a reliable and independent source prior to reinsertion. In addition, while it is permissible to briefly describe the functionality of a product, a massive, bulleted laundry list of every single feature is beyond excessive and belongs in a sales brochure, not an encyclopedia article. The content you are reinserting is absolutely not permitted. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 11:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

What is with all this aggressive "final warning": and accusations on my talk page? I haven't given you any final warnings for vandalism or accused you of being a FOSS zealot intent on damaging the page. Look at the actual content and try and make the page better...

Imagine that you are, say, an NLP developer and someone suggests you look at Mathematica. How would you know it was relevant? What if you were an engineer wanting to do FEA simulations? What if you thought it was good for quantum physics, how would you know it was not? You have rendered the page useless. The systen is around 6000 functions covering very disparate, sometimes unrelated, fields, 390 words to sum that up is not "massive" It could be shortened and certainly referenced. Why not try doing that rather than making the page empty of useful content. Please explain how you think it is better to have no information at all? Greenmatter (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Greenmatter, the reason you are receiving those messages is because your editing is very reminiscent of paid editing without the mandatory disclosure, which I deal with frequently and am quite good at recognizing. While editing for pay is not forbidden, editing for pay without disclosing that you are being paid is. So before we continue further, are you being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia, including being asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment or internship? Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 18:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

No. Now ask yourself if your 'reds under the beds' radar is why you won't talk about the state you have left the page in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenmatter (talk • contribs) 07:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, then we shall say it is...interesting, that a long-dormant account came back after several years to add promotional content to an article about a commercial product. That being said, the content is promotional and not permitted. In an article about software, a prose summation of a few of the most notable features of the software may be okay. A bulleted laundry list of every feature of the software is absolutely not, as it is promotional. If you can find some independent and reliable sources that discuss the most notable features of the software, please do write prose, not a bullet list, that sums up what they had to say. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 17:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to try and write new content that will get deleted. As far as I can see, listing features is pretty normal on software pages (5 of the 7 I looked at), but you may wish to go and delete all of the following too Features_new_to_Windows_10 * Adobe_Photoshop#Photoshop_tools * Google_Chrome#Features * Microsoft_Edge#Features * SageMath#Features — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenmatter (talk • contribs) 19:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes   Barkeep49   Beetstra • KillerChihuahua • Kusma   Arcadian • Extraordinary Machine • Xeno   JamesBWatson → JBW   Interface administrator changes   Evad37

CheckUser changes   Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens   Oversight changes   Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

  Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

  Technical news

• As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

  Arbitration

• The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
• The arbitration case regarding Fram was closed. While there will be a local RfC focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.

  Miscellaneous

• The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

Hello Seraphimblade! I'm writing to you as I found your name in the Editor assistance project (sorry, I don't know how to link it). I wanted to ask if you could help me by answering some questions from time to time. Or maybe advice where I can get such help if you are no longer involved. I'm new here and I learn better face-to-face. I've already asked several questions in the Teahouse, but I don't know if I should spam it every time I need help (at least that's how I perceive it). I would really appreciate your help.Less Unless (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Less Unless, you seem to be doing well so far, and don't worry about asking questions at the Teahouse—that's literally what it's there for, and what you've already posted there has been entirely appropriate. If you'd rather ask me though, you're welcome to do that too. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 19:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade Thank you for cheering me up. I will then write more to the Teahouse, but hope to call on you for help sometimes (promice I'm not annoying )).Less Unless (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I wanted to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. More specifically edits on the Church of The Creator Article and Talk pages. Your review, edits will have an end result of enhancing Wikipedia, an appropriate Article page and it is appreciated. I also appreciate the user name, graphic, that I embrace as symbols of an Order of Whole Light Being, combined with a symbol of truth and justice. As you know, I am a COI, on the Article, but here I am a user of Wikipedia, giving thanks for your efforts on a far broader scope. Michael S. Legions (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Could you do a bit more editing on the 2019 outbreak of lung illness linked to vaping products article? QuackGuru is about to flip his lid on me I feel Mfernflower (talk) 23:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I will continue to work on it as I have time, but I'm afraid I can't guarantee when that will be. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 03:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Once again, the article was flooded with more un-encyclopedic but not necessarily disruptive edits from the usual suspect Mfernflower (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

As the header at the top of this page clearly instructs, please discuss article content on the article talk page, not this one. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 15:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

 

Glad to see you are the best at removing spam. I am a new user, can you show me how to remove advertizing page like this one done by some media company? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandro_Salsano

Contribuine34 (talk) 05:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Contribuine34 Well, thanks. I think I'd probably advise you to get a bit more experience under your belt editing Wikipedia before you try tackling spamming. That article might have a bit of puff to it, but it's certainly far from the worst I've seen. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 05:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes   GermanJoe • Girth Summit • Kees08 • Nosebagbear   DESiegel • GB fan • MSGJ • Voice of Clam • WilyD   DeltaQuad • Fang Aili • Pakaran   Bureaucrat changes   DeltaQuad • Pakaran   Interface administrator changes   MSGJ

CheckUser changes   L235 • Mz7 • SQL • ST47   Ivanvector   DeltaQuad   Oversight changes   L235 • Mz7 • ST47 • Stwalkerster • The Blade of the Northern Lights • Xaosflux   DeltaQuad • DGG • Julia W

  Guideline and policy news

• An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.

• The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).

• A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

  Arbitration

• Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.

Hi! I saw that you had currently accepted article of Ratan Aulakh which is Indian personality but it was too much poor in grammar and was written by someone who has obvious COI. The same person uploaded photos of him on commons claiming that he has copyright and wrote article too. Most of sources are not RS even as per consensus. Article is written in poor taste. Please show some responsibility while accepting these type of articles on Wikipedia. — Harshil <sup>want to talk?</sup> 11:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

If you need some help in India related articles then you can levae message on my talk page. — Harshil <sup>want to talk?</sup> 11:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Harshil, there is exactly one criterion at AfC: "Would this article be deleted?" Not "Is the grammar good?", not "Is it COI?" (COI editors are supposed to submit via AfC), not anything else. Stow the patronizing crap and go fix it if you think it merits it. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 15:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Over much of this year I have already engaged at Talk:Climate crisis in issues of Wikivoice. Since my approach may no longer be viable, would you please look in at that page and offer some admin guidance? Folks are talking pretty freely about "other editors" and "battle" and "denial". Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello! As you were so helpful in handling the Natalia Toreeva article, I was hoping you might be able to have a look at another artist article, Kent Tate. I believe that the artist may be trying to pack the article with irrelevant citations (via COI edit requests). It currently has 15 citations for only 9 sentences. Any help you can offer would be greatly appreciated. Warm regards,  Spintendo  00:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

It bizarre to me just how painful this comment was...rather "is". Question, when there is an OR/There-must-be-sources issue, how can we tell if others are jerks or teachers? If we saw the Socratic method at work, how could we tell if it was teaching or "snark"?

You got it wrong, and I'm not reflecting on what I did in the precursor events, I'm pondering just why your comment continues to hurt. Not to mention the other ed kicking me in the teeth and being defended.

I must really be a piece of shit, not a teacher.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, certainly my intent was not to call you a "piece of shit". However, I find the "Socratic method" translates poorly indeed to text-only communication, and often comes across as snarky or disingenuous. If you have something to say or ask, it's best to just say or ask it directly, not beat around it. "Do you have sources for that?" works just fine, and is a neutral question that shouldn't offend anyone. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 19:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Like everyone, I'm a volunteer. My time is important. An experienced ed who interprets an image, declares we should have text changes, assures us that even a plebian search will show [{WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCS]].... ok.... so a person does all that. I read it. (My volunteer time has been spent.) I then ask "Got sources?" (My volunteer time has been spent again.) Also at play is confirmation bias. The other ed interpreted meaning from an image. It turns out to probably be a correct interpretation, but this is besides the point. They called for text without sources, and the whole process of going back and forth asking them to GET sources also trains the other ed to approach this work with confirmation bias instead of research. Excellent editors study sources, then decide what to say. We have far too many eds who decide what to say then try to justify it. Operating under DONTBITE I would explain all this. (I have boilerplate in my sandbox for this purpose.) But talking to experienced eds who know better, I'm going to challenge them to think. If YOU apply good faith to what I wrote, I believe you will change your mind about calling my remark "a fair amount of provocation". My volunteer time is valuable. Experienced eds should not just declare THEREMUSTBESOURCES, they should offer one up front. That's a matter of respect. But this editor, being called out on this, declares a relationship with me worse than dental surgery without pain meds. I've had some nasty rejection in real life. In a word, I expected admins to have my back, but no, I'm the bad guy becuase I expected an experienced ed to think and start with sources, instead of abusing my time by starting with their own personal image interpretation. And my expectation that they show this care and respect makes me out as the bad guy?????????? Something is amiss, and it's not me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Please modify your comment at AE about my actions. We appear to agree that socratic method can be done in good faith. You have opined that it it "often comes across as snarky". In other words, a problem can arise if the reader (or admin) fails to assume good faith. You've opined I did a great deal of provocation. If one assumes bad faith or one has a CIR-related inability to receive civil socratic method asking them to think, the problem isn't with me, and the AE report should be revised to at least admit the possiblity that I was doing good work and there was a misunderstanding. And I really can't believe the horrible thing the other party said when they failed to assume good faith and failed to back up there desired text with sources was so trivialized. Yet I'm the bad guy, when you admit what I said is open to interpretation? Please consider modifying your comment at AE about my actions. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Just FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tepapi. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure looks it to me too. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 18:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this closure, which diffs showing disruption to article space is the topic ban from GMO's based on? Why did you choose to ignore the feedback given after your closure proposal? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I believe the AE request shows substantial evidence of such disruption, including both the conduct at the request itself and the threats of disruption such as the one in May. I did not, as you assert, "ignore" the feedback, but I am also well aware that no AE result is generally going to be without objection or make everyone happy. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 18:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, ok, so please pinpoint the diffs then. If there is substantial evidence of disruption to article space you shouldn't have a problem specifying it. Looking forward to the diffs from you, because I couldn't find them myself. Thank you. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

No, they're at the request, which you are welcome to read. I am not interested in endlessly arguing over it. If SashiRolls would like to appeal, they should be familiar with the process of doing so. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 20:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

As I said, I can't find the diffs of disruption at the AE. I am requesting you specify which diffs you based your sanction on, please. Thank you. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The answer was "no", and will remain "no" no matter how many times you repeat the question. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 20:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I don’t want to cite adminacct or anything. It’s a simple request. Admin actions require diffs. Please present them. Thanks. Just noticed you lived in Denver. I have 3 sister in laws there. We go a couple times a year. I always have a really good time. Maybe next time we can grab a beer. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

ADMINACCT requires I provide a reason. The request provides plenty and I've already said why. That's the answer, and you're not going to get a different one by repeating the question. ADMINACCT requires that I provide an answer, not that I continue providing different ones until there's one to your liking. Appeals come from the sanctioned party; third-party appeals are not considered. If SashiRolls wishes to appeal, they know how. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 22:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I’ve been reviewing the history of this, with a focus on the previous sanctions cited in the AE. I don’t think you looked at those closely, especially those who have been repeatedly involved and why. I have a much lower opinion of you because of all of this. I thought you were a community leader during the FRAM incident, and am saddened to see this downturn. Thanks for the responses earlier. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade (thank you again, by the way), could you please take a look at this: [6]? An earlier and different version was just deleted here: [7]. I want to emphasize that all the edits took place before the enactment of the sanction, but on the other hand I have concerns about keeping it now that the sanction is in place, because it is clearly about the GMO topic area, so there is no way the so-called "Wiki suit" could be pursued. I'd hate to open a new AE request so soon, so I hope that it's OK to raise this with you here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Tryptofish, will you please let it rest with Sashi? You have commented voluminously at every single noticeboard request concerning them that I've seen. They have no ability to speak back against you now because of the IBAN. You've now aimed your aspersion caster at me too, based on your hatted comments at AE. Enough is enough. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Because the "SWAPP" page was originally about me, it's remained on my watchlist. I'm under no restriction, and for the brief time that it was 2-way, I obeyed it scrupulously; every subsequent discussion came to my attention because someone else pinged me. If you think I'm violating something, go ahead and make a complaint about me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

As the page does not mention you in that version, it is not a violation of the interaction ban. Since the edits were made prior to the topic ban being enacted, they are not actionable (though of course further ones would be). Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 19:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. That makes very good sense to me, and I'll certainly just leave it at that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

All I did to Draft:Canary Connect Inc was substitute the submit template that the author, Beermonk34 had already placed but not substed. Apparently the AfC script has me listed as the author, and therefore the person to notify of declines etc. Can we correct that so Beermonk34 is notified in future? DES <sup>(talk)</sup><sub>DESiegel Contribs</sub> 21:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

DESiegel, that script isn't mine, it's the standard AfC one. It looks like it notified you since you subst'ed the "submit" template. I'll check who the script authors/maintainers are and see if the logic behind who receives the notification can be improved; I'm sure that's not the first time some uninvolved party has helped with doing the submission template properly and gotten a notification that should've gone to someone else. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 21:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I am confused and disappointed by your deletion of the Fizzarotti Palace page. It was not spam or advertising; the building is of historic import. There is very little information about it in English and I genuinely thought a Wiki page would be useful to architecture students and tourists who might want to visit. Also, I see that you moved the Giosuè Poli page to draft. Can you please reinstate the Fizzarotti Palace page in draft form and direct me to resources to help me improve it? I generated and edited pages several years ago and so am rusty at it, so a little help rather than the guillotine would be appreciated. One final question: there are some resources on both of these topics in the Italian wiki. How does info translate/migrate between wikis in different countries/languages? Thanks! Shannon.wianecki (talk) 09:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)shannon.wianecki

Shannon.wianecki, I don't have to go a bit farther than the very first paragraph to find promotional language: ...one of Italy's finest examples of eclecticism in architecture.. Superlatives like that are not appropriate for encyclopedia articles; facts only, and each fact must be verified by a reliable source. One very minor piece, a restoration project, is reference bombed, including even a YouTube channel link, which is generally not appropriate at all. YouTube is not a reference. There's more "talking up" throughout: though most samples of this style are made from chips of quartz and other stone, these samples are superior, made from powdered stones laid down in intricate, sophisticated patterns. Superior to what, according to whom? "Intricate, sophisticated", according to whom? In addition to its remarkable architecture.... "Remarkable" according to whom? ...mitted themselves to restoring the building and its art, that kind of language is straight out of a press release. Language like that is never appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Since the article was promotional, before we proceed, please clarify if you are being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia, including being asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment or internship. If so, you will need to make the required disclosures before you continue to edit. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 14:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade Thanks for your response. Point taken re: promotional language and YouTube not being a reference. Sometimes I am overly effusive. I am not being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia. I created pages for Fizzarotti Palace and Giosue Poli for because I was having trouble finding any references in English about them. I thought other people might find the pages useful and they might collect new info that I haven’t turned up. I am researching Poli for a future art/history exhibit that may take place at the Fizzarotti Palace, the site of his archive. It’s an unpaid project that I’ve taken on because Poli’s role in the Olympics a fascinating, little known piece of history--as is the palace. Isn’t that the heart of Wikipedia? Sharing information like this? Genuine question: I am not related to the Poli family, though I do know them. Does this constitute a conflict of interest? Also, point of order. Am I supposed to ask questions like this here on your talk page, or somewhere else? Thanks! Shannon.wianecki (talk) 10:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Shannon.wianecki, no, disclosure is only required if you're being paid. If you're doing it as part of a volunteer project, that doesn't require it. That being said, Wikipedia's goal is to share information on notable subjects when that information has already been published by a reliable source. If you're finding those sources as part of your research, and can cite them in such articles, that's great! If, on the other hand, you're finding information as a result of your own research that's not already published in a secondary source, Wikipedia would not be the appropriate first place for it to appear. In any case, I've placed the previous version at Draft:Fizzarotti Palace. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 17:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade Got it. Thanks so much. Can you point me in the direction to find answers for my earlier question: there are resources on both of these topics in the Italian wiki. How does info translate/migrate between wikis in different countries/languages? Shannon.wianecki (talk) 11:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by that. It's possible to translate articles between different projects provided that the required attribution is provided to satisfy the CC-BY-SA license terms (a note in the edit summary of where it came from is fine), but each project has its own rules, so an article that is acceptable on the Italian Wikipedia may not be here, or vice versa. It is the translator's responsibility to ensure that the translated article meets the requirements for an article on the project onto which it is being translated. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 01:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Seraphimblade. I see you blocked Yukeshrbs in 2017 for sockpuppetry. I know that was a while ago but twice today a page they created Yukesh Chaudhary has been recreated by seemingly new users. Does their MO seem similar to Yukeshrbs? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

HickoryOughtShirt?4, it's an interesting thought. Both seem to have the habit of inappropriately capitalizing words like "entrepreneur", so it at least seems plausible. Regardless, this seems to be a long-term spamming campaign, so I'll apply a dose of salt. Hopefully that will keep the lid on it. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 18:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

HickoryOughtShirt24, never got that one before  . RoySmith took care of it but thank you. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello there, I just noticed that you deleted a page titled Falalu Dorayi. This is a page for a popular Kannywood actor which I believed should future on the English site and it was not created for anything personal, rather than reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zubairudalhatu (talk • contribs) 21:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Zubairudalhatu, that article was promotional, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Some examples: He is widely regarded as one of the most successful and critically acclaimed filmmakers of today's Kannywood Movie Industry. "Widely regarded" by whom, according to what reference? Dorayi is best known in Kannywood for his imaginative approach to film-making. "Best known" by whom? "Imaginative" according to whom? He made his directorial debut with these series and made him to be regarded as one of the best Directors of all times. The article is absolutely packed with promotional fluff like that, most of it unreferenced and none of it neutral. If you can write an acceptable article in a strictly neutral tone, sticking only to facts verified by reliable sources and avoiding any kind of promotion (including fluff or "talking up"), you're welcome to do that, but advertising, promotion, and fluff pieces are absolutely not permitted here. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 21:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, if that is the case, then the article can be rewrite not deleted. There was no notice to this as it was deleted immediately after it was marked for deletion. If it can be restored, then it can be corrected and have those unreferenced removed. Zubairu Dalhatu 21:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Promotional material may be deleted under section G11 of the speedy deletion criteria, and will remain deleted. Your option is to start a new article free of promotional material or language. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 21:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Please stop undoing my edits to Patrick Tighe's page. I am head of business development at Tighe Architecture and the page has not been updated in some time. If you looked however briefly at the edits I made you would see they are very clearly cited sources, there is no reason for you to keep removing not only the changes I made, let alone all the awards and selected works that already existed on the page as you did. Please stop, it's very annoying to have to keep checking to see if half the page has been deleted or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Simenc (talk • contribs) 17:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

  The Wikipedia Library

 

Books & Bytes
Issue 36, September – October 2019

• #1Lib1Ref January 2020
• #1Lib1Ref 2019 stories and learnings

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, @Seraphimblade! Can you please undelete the Tagdiv you've deleter under G11? My contribution about this awarded web development company is not spam, nor advertising. If you could restore it as a draft I would like to improve it. I've taken note of the links that I'm not allowed to use :) and I plan to make rewrite the descriptions to be NPOV. I have no affiliation, I'm not paid for the contribution. How do I declare my non-affiliation? I don't have experience with Wikipedia, but I would like to contribute with factual information. Thank you! Pharaonharry (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Pharaonharry, you do not have to do anything special if you're not being paid to edit, only if you are. (I suppose you rather just did declare your non-affiliation, in any case.) It's not the worst I've seen, so I restored it to Draft:Tagdiv. You'll want to stay away from marketese like "solutions" (is that software? Templates? Something else? Be specific; don't use fuzzy language), and talking-up PR type language like "It is appreciated by bloggers around the world...", not to mention it is not at all appropriate to have a website link (whether as an actual link or not) anywhere except in the "External links" section at the bottom; certainly not in the lead. Also note that each fact needs to be supported by a reliable source. If it wasn't important enough for independent and reliable sources to mention, it's not important enough for us to mention either. If there isn't much of that type of reference material about the company at all, we won't be able to have an article about it. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 19:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello Seraphimblade, You've recently rejected my draft for City of Mist RPG ( Draft:City of Mist ) on the point of promotional content. However, I have made an effort to describe the game in an objective way, avoiding statements about its quality and sticking to a technical description of the game rules, so I'm finding it hard to locate the said promotional language. Could you help me by pointing me to the language that wasn't appropriate for wikipedia? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McDaire (talk • contribs)

McDaire, it's not the worst case I've ever seen (else it would've been G11'd rather than just declined), but more than enough to give me pause. The link to the site belongs in a separate "External links" section at the bottom, not the See Also. It's very light on wikilinks, which is often a tactic used by marketers to keep readers on a particular page. The Kickstarter numbers are an excessive detail for the lead; noting that it was Kickstarter funded is more than sufficient. The gameplay description is too detailed and blow-by-blow, should be a summary, and all the inappropriate bolding of in-universe terms needs removal (generally speaking, only the article title when first mentioned in the lead should be bolded.) The awards should be removed unless third-party sources independent of those awards note how the win was actually significant, in which case that should be contextualized in prose rather than just stuck in a bulleted list. Also, was the reception really universally positive; there was no one who disliked or criticized it? I haven't looked, and maybe that's so, but it's rare that it's the case. If there was critical feedback or reception, that needs inclusion as well. Sources for reception should be reliable; "EN World", for example, even calls itself a forum, which is not a reliable source and should be removed. Likely similar for the podcast. So, it's not pure promotion (as above, that'd have been deleted, not just declined), but there's sure enough elements of it there to give me pause. It should read like an encyclopedia article, not a brochure on the game. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 18:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade thank you so much for the specific and actionable feedback. I really have no intention of misrepresenting the game here, just to make the facts available. It does helps a lot to have an objective eye. Here's what I've done following your feedback:

- Moved the website link to External Links

- Added Wikilinks wherever possible and reasonable

- Removed the crowdfunding numbers

- Swapped bolding of game terms with italics

- Converted the award section to prose and removed its title

- Removed the EN World and podcast reviews, added another mixed review from a published source (otherwise, published reviews were indeed positive)

- Reduced the volume of text in the gameplay section

There was one issue I couldn't fix: The ENnies are the industry's top award but other publications don't always write about them so a third-party report is hard to come by in my industry. However, I did find a Wiki page on the ENnies, which also mentions the City of Mist awards. Would that be sufficient as reference?

Would this be sufficient? What should be my next step? Thank you.

If you believe it's ready, pressing the button on the template will let you submit it for a new review. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 23:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

There is a request pending at WP:REFUND to undelete Neon Zombie, which you deleted under G11. I looked at the last version prior to deletion, and it did not seem to me fundamentally promotional. There was some puffery, whoch ought to havbe been edited out, but mostly a mater of adjectives and phrasing. The main content seemed to be factual and NPOV. I did not attempt to verify to sources cited or asses notability beyond a quick look at the text of the article.

I ask that you consider restoring this or giving approval to such restoration. If you respond here, please ping me. Thank you. DES <sup>(talk)</sup><sub>DESiegel Contribs</sub> 23:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

DESiegel, looks like fairly standard profile spam to me, but do as you like. If you do choose to, at least get rid of the half dozen social media links. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 00:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

DESiegel , :Seraphimblade I wrote the article. It was my first one and I worked on it for several weeks with the help of Wiki admins via the chat. They were fine with it. I have no problem correcting stuff but I would need the article back. All work would be lost and I dunno how get it back so I can work on it. (Filmjunkie137 (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC))

Seraphimblade Or can it at least restored to a draft? What is exactly going to happen now? What is the exact procedure? Some information would be helpful. What is the next step? (Filmjunkie137 (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC))

Filmjunkie137, it has already been moved to draft space: Draft:Neon Zombie. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 20:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

You said "since admins open to recall will post the recall procedure on their user page", but I disagree. I was an admin for many years and never recall (!) posting the conditions of recall on my user page. I was, however, open to recall should someone have asked, especially as it should really be something that an admin should respond to rather than ignore three or more times. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, that's interesting and I've never heard of that practice. Were you still in Category:Administrators open to recall? Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 02:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I can't remember, it was a while ago, although I do vaguely remember having that cat on my user page. The one thing I do know is that, as an admin, I would have answered the question, in any circumstance, honestly and openly per WP:ADMINACCT had it have been asked. Despite the current context, I'm surprised that the admin in question refused to even acknowledge the question, let alone answer it, at least four times. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I think there was a fair bit of less than optimal conduct in that discussion in general. I would tend to agree that, pointed or not, it would be best to answer the question if asked it. It's not mandatory, so a simple "No, I'm not" would easily suffice to put it to rest. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 21:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Well that would have been fine, and would have focussed me onto an Arbcom-based recall process. I wasn't happy with the admins in question making personal attacks and fabricating my motivations, so I asked the question of them a few times. It remains unresolved, and even post-Arbcom, this will need to be revisited, not that it's your problem in any shape. Thanks for the discussion. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Just a heads up: after your final warning, the user left this rather uncivil message implying that she was done, but shortly afterwards continued making the same claims on the article Talk page. I figured you'd want to know directly but I can bring this to BLPN if you'd prefer. Woodroar (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Woodroar, I've already taken care of it, but thanks for the heads up. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 23:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

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

 

  Administrator changes

  EvergreenFir • ToBeFree

  Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

  CheckUser changes

  Beeblebrox

  Deskana

  Interface administrator changes

  Evad37

  Guideline and policy news

• An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
• Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.

  Technical news

• Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. (T219126)

  Arbitration

• Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

  Miscellaneous

• The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.

 

Hello, Seraphimblade. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hello Seraphimblade, You recently rejected my draft for QI Macros ( Draft:QI Macros ) saying "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." My major issue with the article being rejected is that other similar SPC Excel add-ins appear to have inferior articles: Analyse-it is not as well written and has far fewer references, NumXL only has 1 reference and it is to their own website, SigmaXL only references journal entries (like a few of of the QI Macros references,) SPC XL barely has an article at all, SUDAAN has literally NO references, and XLfit is also a skeleton of an article. If these articles were approved, why cannot the QI Macros article stand alongside them? PM (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Phil Meltzer, other stuff exists is not a valid argument (that just may mean the other articles have problems that the one you wrote shares). You would need to ensure that the article you are writing cites sufficient reliable and independent source material to demonstrate notability. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 23:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, it seems you're right about one thing; some of those articles will likely need to be removed as well. But you're correct, most of them are poor and many of them don't seem to have sufficient references. To show notability, reliable and independent sources must cover something in reasonable depth, not just mention or name drop it. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 23:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Please elaborate all reasons why you delete this article. IRoyalYadav (talk) 06:21, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

IRoyalYadiv, the two reasons are in the deletion log: It failed to assert notability, and it was promotional. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 06:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Gerda, are you trying to make me feel old? :) Thanks though, nice to periodically get a message that's not complaining about something. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 17:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Hayimi (talk) 06:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC) Appealing to the criteria for speedy deletion. See G7. Blocking this would be sheer hypocrisy.

I understand the reason why this page was deleted, however this is someone who has earned press from reputable sources as seen on his Google news- https://www.google.com/search?q=aaron+minc&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS870US870&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwis8aCb3aHmAhWLmlkKHeZaB60Q_AUoAXoECA4QAw&biw=1517&bih=694. If you could restore the page as a draft, I would like to improve it. Thank you very much for your help. Safecontrib22 (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Safecontrib22, as the article was promotional, please first clarify whether you are being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia, including being asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment or internship. If so, you will need to make the required disclosures before we continue. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 19:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not being paid. I heard Aaron Minc on a podcast and noticed that he didn't have a Wikipedia page. I saw that he had a lot of notable press and wanted to create a page for him.Safecontrib22 (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Safecontrib22, thanks for clarifying that. It's not the worst I've seen, so I restored to Draft:Aaron Minc. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 22:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I have revised Draft:Aaron Minc to make less promotional and additional sources have been added to the page. Can you please review and let me know if you can accept this?Safecontrib22 (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Seraphimblade. You topic banned me 6 years ago (on any topic related to the Balkans) [8]. I was wondering if it's possible to end that ban. I'd like to think I'd grown up since then :). Cavann <sup>(talk)</sup> 00:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Cavann, you've not edited at all since then. Please first show a pattern of substantial positive editing outside the topic ban area before you request reconsideration. With you not having edited at all, I've got nothing at all to go on. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 03:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I was pretty disappointed, so gave up on Wikipedia. I can stick to one revision at most for a year. Cavann <sup>(talk)</sup> 21:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, hope you enjoy editing now that you're back. Like I said, after you've edited for a while, ask again and we can certainly consider it at that point. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 22:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

That's quite vague though, so I'm guessing it won't happen. Cavann <sup>(talk)</sup> 22:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	thanks for saving my article from deletion Jayson Pahlmeyer. Rubydavis1250 (talk) 06:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Rubydavis1250, don't now make me regret declining it. If you've got a COI, that needs to be disclosed. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 23:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, Hello, No I don't have. Rubydavis1250 (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes   Dreamy Jazz • Newslinger • Rosguill   Deor • Spartaz • Xeno   Angusmclellan • clpo13 • Edgar181 • Matthewedwards • NCurse

CheckUser changes   Bradv • Casliber • David Fuchs • Maxim • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy • Xeno   Oversight changes   Bradv • Casliber • DGG • David Fuchs • Maxim • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy • Xeno   Someguy1221

  Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
• A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
• Following a successful RfC, a whitelist is now available for users whose redirects will be autopatrolled by a bot, removing them from the new pages patrol queue. Admins can add such users to Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist after a discussion following the guidelines at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist.

  Arbitration

• The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
• Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno.

  Miscellaneous

• This issue marks three full years of the Admin newsletter. Thanks for reading!

I'm a new registered user on Wikipedia. I'm surprised you left me such an aggressive message about possibly banning me. It would have been more appropriate to simply explain the siutaiton and then let me respond. I was under the impression my user sandbox was a place to experiment with editing before posting an article. The sandbox content you chastised me for was later posted as a live article. I'm not spamming Wikiepedia. I'm trying to follow what I though was a legitimate use of my page. I won't repost what was in my sandbox because, like I said, I was just "practicing". — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrooklandKendall (talk • contribs) 23:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

BrooklandKendall, while advertising is not permitted anywhere on Wikipedia, including in userspace, that wasn't the primary issue. Rather, the main issue was that you made a few edits to end-run the autoconfirmed requirement, and then placed an advertisement directly into the encyclopedia, at SMA NYC. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 23:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how to directly respond to your response, so I'm creating a new section.

"you made a few edits to end-run the autoconfirmed requirement"

I don't understand this accusation. What "end-run" did I make? I don't know if English is your first language, but "end-run" is often an accusation that someone intentionally did something to avoid responsibility.

Again, I'd ask you to not be so agressive in your assesment of a new user.

Please explain your point. What end-run did I do to post the article?

I was *not* trying to insert an advertisment. I was doing my best to follow guidelines by providing the citations available to me, and I reviewed multiple other company pages, and felt I was as close as I could be.

If it makes a difference, I am not an employee of the company in question, I'm trying to bring attention to a marketing approach a company I'm familiar with. I'm a software developer and am very familiar with how the practices of private companies sometimes become standards an industry follows. I believe the company whose page I posted has a valid process for their work that could be extended to other disciplines, not just their domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrooklandKendall (talk • contribs) 00:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

BrooklandKendall, you can reply by indenting your reply one level further than previous. (I did that here to make clear what discussions go together.) If you say that's not the case, then, well—it certainly looks an awful lot like a substantial number of bad actors we get in, but as HickoryOughtShirt?4 told you, I'll presume that was just bad luck on your part and you have no bad intents. However, articles cannot be promotional (and I noticed the article because I was just about to delete it, and Hickory apparently got to it seconds before I did). First, I don't respond well to snark, so I'd cut the "I don't know if English is your first language..." (it for reference is). Generally, when someone makes just ten edits or a few more, and then puts an ad in mainspace, they are trying to slip around the requirement that new editors should generally create an article as a draft, and have it reviewed by a more experienced editor from articles for creation. Creating an appropriate new article is one of the more difficult things to do even for experienced editors. In this case, there were quite a few examples: ...results-driven... (meaningless marketese), These marketers know that selection of their product can be pivotal in their customer’s business and in their life, so buyer dynamics are intense. (also rather meaningless "talking up", and according to whom?), SMA believes that understanding the dynamics of Pivotal Purchases informs all kinds of communication decisions – in creative development and in designing the best message delivery systems. (we don't care what they believe, we care what reliable and independent sources say about them). The lists of clients and the like is unreferenced, let alone having any references to show that it's considered significant, and also contains several external links within article text which are not permitted. If the mentioned organization doesn't have a Wikipedia article, the name should then just be plain, unlinked text. That's not an exhaustive list of the issues, but it's a start as to what made the article inappropriately promotional rather than neutral. Also, substantial amounts of reliable and independent source material is required, and facts stated in the article must be supported by them. If such sourcing doesn't exist, we should have no article about that subject at all. We would take notice of them after they're already widely known; this isn't the place to "get the word out". Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 01:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello there! Thank you for the work you are doing, I can imagine that is not always easy :)

My draft page "Draft:The Thin Gold Line" has been deleted by you yesterday because of Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Do you think there is a way to make a company wiki page without advertising or promote? Should I delete some "wrong" text? My goal is to say that this brand exist and that their product is the largest hot gold foil stamping realization to date.

Let me know what you think.

In any case can I have back the draft page, even only for few minutes just to copy some text that I need?

Thank you very much for your precious time!

Best, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamyouaresheis (talk • contribs) 13:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Iamyouaresheis, yes, we have many articles about companies and products. They are required to be neutral in tone and content, based upon reliable and independent sources. If substantial amounts of such reference material do not exist, we should not have an article about the subject. In this case, the sources looked rather like blogs (which are not reliable) and read like reprinted press releases (the first source actually acknowledges such) which are not independent. The article contains a fair bit of marketese, such as use of the meaningless "brand" (is it a product? A company? Then call it that.), and fluffy "talking up" like The Thin Gold Line is also a technical achievement: the art prints being the largest hot gold foil stamping realization to date, printed on the blackest paper in the world. (And such an assertion would need a much more reliable source than what essentially looks like a blog). I don't restore advertisements on-wiki, but if you'd like to have a copy of the deleted text to use elsewhere, I can send it by email. If you'd like me to do that, let me know whether you would like the text as plain text or with wiki markup. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 22:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you a lot! Great feedbacks! Yes, could you send me by email the entire wiki html text? Thank you! Iamyouaresheis (talk) 07:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Seraphimblade do you already have my email?

Iamyouaresheis (talk) 10:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Awhile back you helped move my flagged article Fizarotti Palace to draft. Can you help me again or direct me to where I can find help? Is this new version more suitable? Also, how do I fix the coordinates and image box. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Fizzarotti_Palace Thanks so much! Shannon.wianecki (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Shannon.wianecki, certainly looks better now than it did. I added a template to the article so that you can request review once you believe it's ready to move to mainspace. I'm afraid I'm not terribly familiar with fixing infobox stuff, but if you ask at the teahouse I bet someone will know how to do it. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 01:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

This page has been vandalized by deletion, according to my research.

Springer has a solid work history in the music industry and is mention in several articles pertaining to Rock 'n' Roll bands and their histories.

If anything, Springer is undercredited, if you judge him only on discography.

Check these two sources:

https://www.discogs.com/artist/429818-Malcolm-Springer

https://www.allmusic.com/artist/malcolm-springer-mn0000561280

Check my work, but I believe this is a good start made up of Collected and Other pertinent information:

Malcolm Springer Malcolm Sibley Springer (born April 2, 1970) is an American mix engineer, record producer, songwriter, arranger, and musician known for his long association with the House of Blues Studios and work with rock artists such as Matchbox 20, Collective Soul, Full Devil Jacket and Fear Factory.[1]

Early Life Born in Hayti, Mo., April 2, 1970, Springer grew up on a Southeast Missouri farm in New Madrid County between Marston, Mo., and Portageville, Mo., and attended Portageville Elementary and Portageville Junior High School and graduated from Portageville High School in 1988.

An all-state high school athlete, Springer played football and ran track as a member of the relay team and for 440 yard events.

Music has been a part of Springer’s life since age 8 when he started piano lessons. “They didn’t last long,” he recalled of the lessons. But Springer continued to develop his abilities on piano as well as on other instruments including guitar and bass.

While Springer only attended Southeast Missouri State University in Cape Girardeau, Mo., for one year, he played double bass for the university’s band during his time there and became a member of the Pi Kappa Alpha Fraternity.

Music career In 1991, Springer worked for high-end mixing console manufacturer Solid State Logic installing their first “Ultimation” motorized fader automation systems. By 1992, Springer had been promoted/hired as chief engineer at Beale Street Studios in Memphis, Tenn. In 1993, he became chief engineer at the House of Blues Studios in Memphis, Tenn., where he remained until 1996. Springer also worked as a staff engineer at Ocean Way Nashville Studio in Nashville, Tenn., in 1995-1996. In 1996-1997, Springer worked as an assistant engineer and production coordinator for Peter Collins, an English record producer.

Discography[1] Engineer/mixer 1993 – The Screamin' Cheetah Wheelies – The Screamin' Cheetah Wheelies 1994 – The Mother Station – Brand New Bag 1994 – O'Landa Draper – Live ... A Celebration of Praise

1995 – Collective Soul – Collective Soul 1995 – Royal Trux – Thank You 1995 – Joan Armatrading – What's Inside 1995 – Joshua Kadison – Delilah Blue 1995 – Isaac Hays – Branded

1995 – Danny Tate – Nobody's Perfect

1996 – Matchbox 20 – Yourself Or Someone Like You

1996 – Tela – Piece of Mind

1996 – Tela – Twisted

1996 – Ominous Seapods – Jet Smooth Ride

1996 – God Street Wine – Red

1997 – Collective Soul – Disciplined Breakdown

1997 – Claw Hammer – Hold Your Tongue (And Say Apple)

1997 – Andrew Dorff – Hint of Mess

1997 – I Bet – Sunhouse

1997 – I Bet – Grapes

1997 – Calvin Russell – The Story Of Calvin Russell (This Is My Life)

1998 – Emmet Swimming – Big Night Without You

1998 –The Ominous Seapods – Matinee Idols: Late Show

1998 – Bare Jr. – Boo-Tay

2001 – Fear Factory – Digimortal

2002 – Sinch – Sinch

2006 – Eli-Stone – Hard Times

2007 – Matchbox Twenty – Exile On Mainstream

2007 – Nova Red — No Regrets

2010 – Fades Away – Perceptions

2013 – The Sixxis – The Sixxis

Producer 1999 – Full Devil Jacket – A Wax Box 2000 – Mile – Back to the Floor

2000 – Mile – Driving Under Stars

2000 – Wanna Be Martyr – Various - Scream 3 The Album 2000 – Full Devil Jacket – Full Devil Jacket 2000 – Liquid Gang – Sunshine 2000 – Tidewater Grain – Here On The Outside 2000 – Various – MTV: The Return of Rock 2000 – Green Iron Fist – Various - Heavy Metal 2000 Original Motion Picture Soundtrack

2000 – Various – Heavy Metal 2000 FAKK2

2000 – Liquid Gang – 4-Track Sampler

2000 – Green Iron Fist – Various - Heavy Metal 2000

2000 – Various – Scream 3 (Original Soundtrack)

2001 – Mesh – Lowercase

2001 – Spike 1000 – Make Me Suffer

2001 – Spike 1000 – Waste of Skin

2001 – Various – More Music From the Fast and the Furious

2002 – Sinch – Something More

2002 – Sinch – Sinch

2002 – Greenwheel – Soma Holiday

2002 – Shelter – Various - Spider-Man: Music From and Inspired By

2002 – Neuro Girl – Hotwire

2002 – Greenwheel – Breathe

2002 – Various – MTV Road Rules: Don't Make Me Pull This Thing Over, Vol. 1

2004 – Modern Day Zero – Coming Up For Air

2004 – (Intheclear) – (intheclear)

2005 – Modern Day Zero – Coming Up For Air

2005 – In The Clear (2) – Dirty Cheese And the Hoodie Thieves EP

2005 – (Intheclear) – Dirty Cheese And the Hoodie Thieves EP

2006 – Greenwheel – Bridges for Burning

2006 – Cavo (3) – The Painful Art of Letting Go

2007 – (intheclear) – TV Tracks

2009 – Brookroyal – There Was A Time

2013 – Tantric – 37 Channels

2013 – The Sixxis – The Sixxis

Writer/arranger 2000 – Full Devil Jacket – Full Devil Jacket 2001 – Fear Factory – Digimortal 2002 – Greenwheel – Soma Holiday

Musician 2000 – Liquid Gang – Sunshine 2001 – Spike 1000 – Waste of Skin 2002 – Greenwheel – Soma Holiday

References Malcolm Sibley Springer https://www.discogs.com/artist/429818-Malcolm-Springer Malcolm Sibley Springer https://www.allmusic.com/artist/malcolm-springer-mn0000561280 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.232.122.72 (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

No, there was no vandalism. The prior "article" on Springer was a spamvertisement, and those are deleted. If you believe you can write an appropriate article about this individual, start a draft. You will need better references than Discogs and Allmusic. If no better references exist, we should not have an article about this subject at all. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 20:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Late to the game, but probably already too closely associated to be the author.

This stuff shouldn't be too hard to track down. Album image by album image liner notes, if all else fails.

FWIW, I was very much about facts during my 17 years as a journalist/editor for The Standard Democrat. I'm not looking to inflate anything.

Best regards,

Scott — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.232.122.72 (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Album liner notes would not be sufficient. What is necessary to establish notability is a substantial quantityy of reliable and independent reference material written about an individual by disinterested third parties. Again, if that does not exist, then we should not have an article about a given subject at all. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 06:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Seraphimblade,

As per Wikipedia's notability page, "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability."

Numerous gold and platinum awards for past projects notwithstanding, here are a few links.

https://vimeo.com/81761761

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr_woDO9Gbc

https://www.semissourian.com/story/1918209.html

Springer is much more notable and significant than several artists he has developed, produced, mixed or recorded that have met the criteria for being notable.

At what point does a producer become "notable"? Because I don't understand the specific criteria.

As a lay person user of Wikipedia who has found it very reliable and a great first step in getting information on a variety of subjects and as a former journalist who used Wikipedia in the same way, I find it frustrating and odd that I can learn about some producers but others are non-clickable links.

Artists, audophiles, entertainment writers are just three off the top of my head who would agree that any producer, mixer, songwriter, arranger that has on several occassions contributed verifiable and credited work on albums selling a million units is worth knowing more about.

Best regards,

Scott who probably should be digging around for his Wikipedia password and doing all of this while logged in. 2600:6C40:2A7F:F61A:A599:D2DA:EB8F:BB9F (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Seraphimblade, Thank you for your help in reviewing the draft page: Gareth O'Sullivan. The article has been updated as per your comments "Phrases like "passion and knowledge" need toned down or removed, as well as the puff and talking up. "O'Sullivan", not "Gareth" (full name on first mention, last only thereafter.)" Is there anything else required for O'Sullivan's draft article to be approved? Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsGGO18 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

It looks like you've resubmitted it, so it will be reviewed in due course. Sorry, but I don't really have time to take an in-depth look at it right now. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 22:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Could you please help review this once again and help provide leads on what's can be done to make it better?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Invisible_Borders_Trans-African_Photographers_Organisation

Thanks a lot. 7ru57 (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

7ru57, with a brief look at it, it looks like the "1st edition..." and so on includes an excess of detail, and the lead of the article certainly should not repeat the organization's "mission" statement, as those are generally promotional. I do not have time to thoroughly look at it right now. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 22:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

  The Wikipedia Library

 

Books & Bytes
Issue 37, November – December 2019

• #1Lib1Ref
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes   Ergo Sum • Nick Moyes • QEDK • Wugapodes   Dennis Brown   Aude • BrownHairedGirl • CALR • Jengod • John Reaves • J.smith • Kim Dent-Brown • K1Bond007 • MECU • Refdoc • RHaworth

CheckUser changes   Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos   Interface administrator changes   Ragesoss

  Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
• The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

  Technical news

• Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
• When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [9]

  Arbitration

• Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

  Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2020 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2020, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2020, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• The English Wikipedia has reached six million articles. Thank you everyone for your contributions!

Maybe move that to the RFC's main page? I don't want any 'content' comments to get overlooked by the closing admin(s) just because they're on the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I have already made my comments on the RfC's main page. I was responding specifically to your summary. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 20:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but your response to my 'meta' comments was a 'content' comment. A direct response to my comment would probably sound more like "I agree (or disagree) that most editors support ____". Instead, you posted your own thoughts on the RFC subject – which is fine, but there is a small risk that it will be overlooked by the closing admins. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Like I said, I've already made my "content" comments. So thanks for your suggestion, but I'm satisfied with it as is. Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 21:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)