User talk:DESiegel

This user may have left Wikipedia. DESiegel has not edited Wikipedia since 6 October 2021. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Intro

Procedure

This is my talk page. Please add new messages to the bottom of the page, Please sign all msgs with four tildes (like this ~~~~). Click here to start a new topic. DES ^(talk) 03:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will generally preserve all comments, positive or negative, and archive them when the page gets too large. But I may choose to delete vandalism or nonsense. I would generally prefer that other editors not remove anything from my talk page. Thank you for communicating with me. DES ^(talk) 03:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any removals of content from my talk page may be reverted by rollback with or without notice. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I may respond on your talk page, or under your comment here. If i respond here I will notify you with a {{talkback}} template, or a ping, or both, unless you have asked me not to, or have asked editors in general not to so notify you (as some editors do). DES ^(talk) 21:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I have left a comment on your talk page, or on an article talk page, you may respond where i left the comment, or here. If you respond where i left the comment, to keep the thread together, dropping me a note or placing a {{talkback}} or {{tb}} template on this page, or pinging me by including {{U|DESiegel}} in a signed talk page comment will probably mean that I see your comment and respond sooner. Please consider doing so. DES ^(talk) 00:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit the header template (User:DESiegel/TPHdr) used to display these header sections of the talk page unless there is a problem with it -- that template is not a good place to leave messages for me. DES ^(talk) 21:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello DESiegel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Flockmeal 20:21, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Hi there. My wiki interest is editing food pages and you'll see I edit and improve mostly food pages in my time on wiki. I'm currently in a discussion with you and others in relation to the page foodporn. I'd like you to kindly investigate users Hogohit and Praxidicae. An investigation of Special:Contributions/Hogohit proves this is merely a vandalism account (as they just created this account 2 days ago with the sole purpose of deleting/vandalising foodporn and 'food porn'. Further, if you look at Special:Contributions/Praxidicae, this user just makes wholesale edits, speedy deletion requests, and deletes whole slabs of edits and content on multiple pages without any kind of justification or rationale. This is not helpful for new users trying to learn how to be a wiki editor. I think both users should be perma banned for vandalism. Thanks for your time. PS: apologies my 'wiki speak' still needs some work. I'm learning as I go :)

Results Driven Marketing, LLC

Hi. Would you please draftify or userfy the subject article, or at least send me a copy of the wikitext? Thanks. — Jeff G. ツ 13:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Courses Modules are being deprecated

Hello,

Your account is currently configured with an education program flag. This system (the Courses system) is being deprecated. As such, your account will soon be updated to remove these no longer supported flags. For details on the changes, and how to migrate to using the replacement system (the Programs and Events Dashboard) please see Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive 18#NOTICE: EducationProgram extension is being deprecated.

Thank you! Sent by: xaosflux 20:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done — xaosflux ^Talk 17:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion of page "Oksana Tanasiv"

I received a message from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mduvekot regards too many references to artist's web-site. I did not have enough time to correct it. The references to artists website could be removed , if it going against of Wikipedia rules. They were created with purpose to give information about collections. Please renew the page so I am able to remove all references to artist’s website. Best regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorforart (talk • contribs) 04:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Editorforart, I deleted the article as being very promotional. This is not just a matter of references to the artist's web site, but that the whole text read like an advertisement for the artist, or a CV. I have restored it and moved it to Draft:Oksana Tanasiv, where it can be edited down to a factually based test. Remwember that all statements should be suported or be able to be supported, from reliabel sources. Please read Wikipedia's Golden Rule and Your first article before continuing. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oksana Tanasiv

Editorforart (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC) Thank you for restoring the article to the draft. I would correct the issues and improve the article to the required standards. Also, I would appreciate any of your help or volunteers help in correcting it. Thank you.[reply]

Of course, Editorforart. Plese do not include personal orm uncited opnions or subjective statements about the nature of the artist's work. All statements should be clearly factual, or elswe quoted opnions from reliable sources which are cited, clearly marked as such. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sikander Menghro

Hi David, you declined the speedy deletion of Sikander Menghro. Actually page was created by me by mistake. A page already exist on same person under different name at Sikandar Ali Mandhro. Redirection does not make sense because the spelling are wrong, therefore I suggested it be deleted. --Saqib (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Thank you for your response and help. Very much appreciated LampGenie01 (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A+F at NMWA 3/17/2018

Hello! The passcode is "af". I hope you're able to sign up without trouble and I look forward to having you join us Saturday. Let me know if you need any other assistance. sarahobender (talk • contribs) 13:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AGF

I've had problems with your authoritive tones before. If anyone needs to AGF it's you. Consider discussing COIN and not the people who work hard to clean this place up and reduce its misuse. Thank you for your comprehension and your otherwise excellent work at the Tea House. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In response to kindness and an eagerness to learn well

Hello DESiegel, I am Deermouse, Thank you for the grammatical enlightenment. I too know this however I chose to practice the communication skills to improve wiki love. This response to your kind remark is well sent with much wiki love. I hope to improve my editing soon. I have some cleaning up to do over at the Human nutrition page. I would inquire of this Ambassador program, rather the subject matter MoS.Deermouse (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hello DESiegel. I know we wound up at cross purposes just now. My apologies for that. I want you to know that I have been working with reFill for a few months now and have spent many hours working on the citations that it doesn't fix. My efforts are in an attempt to keep the Category:All articles with bare URLs for citations clear. It has been a good learning experience (and left my typing fingers tired a few times) but it has also taught me that reFill isn't perfect and it certainly isn't designed to accomplish what you are striving for. I think your new template looks good and I appreciate this edit as it will avoid any confusion over what that program can't do. Again my apologies for any upset I've brought to your evening or day depending on where you live. MarnetteD|Talk 02:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MarnetteD, no upset at all. I apologize for my tone. You were correct, using a tag that promised that refill would fix what it in fact won't fix was not helpful. I was thinking of the general purpose of {{linkrot}} but its specific wording didn't really fit this situation, and when you pointed out that that was the issue, i basically cloned {{linkrot}}, changing the wording and removing the references to refill. I think refill has been significantly improved of late, and if that was in part your doing, thank you. I take it that it no longer stuffs extra info in the title parameter as it used to do, and as the earlier tool did? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I am not sure as I don't think I used the earlier version. I haven't seen it stick anything more than the basic title into that field but I have seen some title fields with way more in them than the actual title. Thanks to your message I now know why :-) My wikiprogramming skills are minimal so it is the work of others that will have brought about improvements. Cheers and enjoy the rest of your week. MarnetteD|Talk 02:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The earlier tool was Reflinks by the way, MarnetteD. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. Thanks for the link. MarnetteD|Talk 02:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the template you created for merging with Template:Ref expand {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Allen Jr. and Suzann Christine Deletion

Hello, DESiegel !

I have had two of my recent additions to Wikipedia deleted by another user. Suzann Christine and Damon Allen Jr. He is an administrator. The reason for deletion was because it seemed promotional. I communicated to him that I would like the opportunity to edit the pages but they were deleted without ever having been nominated. It was quite sudden and startling, considering the pages have been in place for several months now.

I took some time to go through several Wikipedia training courses so that I am better prepared to edit. The admin who deleted the pages has been unresponsive for 24 hours, so I am reaching out to you, as you helped me with the edits on my first page, Charlie Heat . What I am asking is to have the additions restored so that I can edit in a more neutral fashion. I didn't realize that by quoting people who give praise, that I would in turn be adopting a promotional tone. He advised that I drop the quoted material and simply state facts. I understand.

He also questioned if I have been compensated to edit on Wikipedia and I have not YET been paid. I do intend to be paid in the future so I have added the required PAID template to my Userpage.

Please reach out. The pages were deleted last week. I took the topics on as a way to give myself good experience in this setting.

Thank you.

Whitevwins (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whitevwins, You need to understand first of all that most Wikipedia editors, and as far as I know all Wikipedia admins, are totally unpaid volunteers who edit and perform administrative functions in their spare time. Please read Wikipedia:There is no deadline. A 24 hour delay does not usually constitute "unresponsive". No response for a week or two might. Seraphimblade is a well-respected and experienced admin. So is Kudpung. As Kudpung told you, asking one admin to undo the acts of another ("admin shopping") is not usually well received. If you cannot come to an agreement with the deleting admin, the next step should be Deletion review, but that should not be tried until a full discussion with the deleting admin has taken place, or the admin has absolutely refused to restore the text in any way, or has been unresponsive for a significant period of time. It is also true that some admins will put paid editors lower on their priority list for assistance than they will volunteers.

Please understand that someone who expects or even hopes to be paid for editing is just as much a paid editor here as someone who is paid in advance, or is on salary, and you must disclose your paid status before making any further edits on behalf of clients/employers. Failure to do so will lead to your being blocked from editing. While I am somewhat more sympathetic to those paid editors who comply with the current rules than some other admins are, I am not actually in favor of paid editing, and i will block undisclosed paid editors freely. I see that you have now made a general disclosure. Remember to add specific articles/drafts to that disclosure as you create/edit them for pay.

I briefly reviewed the deleted text of Suzann Christine and Damon Allen Jr. Both were, in my view, significantly promotional. I might not have done a speedy deletion on either had I been the admin to review them, but I would at least have moved them to draft or user space, and issued a warning. Such language as passion, To Exercise her activism, and openly express her talent and ability is promotional and should not be used. When a quote is used, it must not only be supported by a citation, but be attributed to its source in the article text, not just in a footnote. Quotes such as Always singing, since the age of 5, she loaned her voice to the church and talent shows but she didn't think about turning her passion into a career. carry a strong point-of-view, and are usually best avoided, even if they are accurate quotes. That factual information can be conveyed by such wording as Her work was favorably reviewed by "Geo" of the Philly Music project (followed by the citation). Note also that a ststement such as She has performed at many events, most notably the N2N Festival that featured a tribute to The Artist Formally Known As Prince. could be read as a form of name-dropping. The tribute to Prince does not make Suzann Christine more notable, but may seem to do so. Even if accurate, such statements should be avoided.

I urge you, if you want to proceed with these articles, to recreate them in draft or user space, doing your best to stick strictly to the facts, without judgments or spin, and submit them for review thru articles for creation, as Kudpung advised. Avoid adjectives of judgement and opinions except in attributed and cited direct quotes.

I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DESiegel (talk · contribs) So very helpful. I appreciate your insight and direction very much. I will take the advice to first edit in draft or userspace and then submit for review through articles for creation, as Kudpung advised. Whitevwins (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12 Days of Pizza Help Most Appreciated

Thanks very much, DESiegel!

I have submitted the following links: External Links

Bulleted list item

http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/local-businesses-feed-families-in-need-with-days-of-pizza/article_29e5800c-3f0c-5f08-990f-bf9902bc78b0.html

Bulleted list item

http://www.blackhillsfox.com/content/news/12-Days-of-Pizza-helps-48-families-this-year-408093315.html

Bulleted list item

http://www.bhpioneer.com/deadwood/days-of-pizza-take/article_efc1a0a6-cd10-11e6-be88-5b5d3a67ae28.html

Bulleted list item

http://www.bhpioneer.com/local_news/days-of-pizza-takes-a-bite-out-of-hunger/article_72ef5156-ecb6-11e7-89b7-ff72578868d1.html

Bulleted list item

http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/gooddeeds/our-good-deeds-days-of-pizza-program-takes-slice-out/article_27c79145-c3f7-5ba3-9a0f-bbd4ce639a0f.html

I hope this meets with your approval. If not, I will be happy to modify as instructed.

I VERY much appreciate your help. Thanks again.

Jkcproject (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, David.

Thanks for the advice you gave me regarding the page I'm writing on the artist from Palestine. I'm new to Wikipedia and I admit that I feel like I'm in a maze. I want to follow the Wikipedia guidelines to a "t" and I want to be an effective and productive contributor. Am I free to contact you with questions as I work towards getting the page ready for approval, or should I always go directly to the Tea House?

George David NH (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, George David NH, and I am very glad to have been helpful. Do feel free to reach out to me with questions at qany time. However, I am not on Wikipedia all the time, and may go for several days without logging in, depending on what is happening in my non-Wikipedia life. If you want a prompter response, posting at the Teahouse is not a bad idea. Several other regular volunteers there are skilled and helpful.

You may always get my attention by posting here on my talk page. Or you may ping me by placing the code {{ping|DESiegel}} or {{u|DESiegel}} on any talk page where you want my attention, as part of a new signed comment. Note that without the signature, the software does not notify me.

Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and practices are complex. Each of them exists for a reason, often a good reason. But no one should act harshly towards a new editor who is trying in good faith to act properly. (Some may, but no one should.) Keep your mind firmly on a few key policies: verifibility and the need to cite sources to support most factual statements; notability, the need to only include articles about notable topics; the Neutral point of view and the need to neither praise nor disparage any person, subject, or concept in Wikipedia's voice, but to keep articles factual; What Wikipedia is not, the need not to include inappropriate content, the Biographies of living People policy, the need to be extra careful when writing about currently living people. Stick firmly to these and the rest more or less follows. It is no accident that these basic policies overlap and reinforce each other.

Do you have any current questions or issues you would like help with? In any case, I wish you happy and productive editing. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Question

Hi David. Can you help me? I'm struggling with the Wikipedia page I've been trying to create. It should be in draft mode but it's live. I don't know how to do my references and I reached out for help on a thread here and got dumped on. Can you look at the page, give me your advice and help me get it back to draft? — Preceding unsigned comment added by George David NH (talk • contribs) 21:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted page: Remix Awards

Hello DESiegel, you just deleated my draft because "it violates Copyrights"? Please help, those were references, no? Re: Remix Awards (This submission appears to be taken from http://www.youredm.com/2017/02/19/check-nominees-2017-remix-awards/, http://dancingastronaut.com/2017/02/2017-remix-awards-announce-nominees-mmw-event/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimBello (talk • contribs) 14:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, TimBello. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. The draft did register very high on our cpyright violation detection tools, but on a closer look that was because the lists of nominees were, of course, te same in the draft and in the sources. Tis is one of the very few cases where such close identity between a Wikipedia page and a source page is acceptable, where the content is basically a list of facts presented in their natural order, with no creative selection. In this case, i should not have deleted it, and Shadowowl should not have tagged it as a copyvio. We ll make mistakes.

Accordingly, i have restored Draft:Remix Awards. However, we do already have an article Remix awards, and it might be better to work on that. We don't normally have two different articles on the same topic, so unless your draft is intended as a total replacement, it will be a waste of effort. (No we don't either.)

A couple of procedural points. Please sign posts on talk and discussion pages, with four tildes (~~~~). Please add new posts to the bottom of my talk page (not the top) or use the "New section" button, which may show up as a plus sign. Most user talk pages have new posts added at the bottom. Happy editing, and feel free to ask for help or advice. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Declined CSD G11

Hello DESiegel. I see you have declined my G11 tagging on User:Attunement/Marvin_Bressler. However, it contains promotional sentences like renowned educator and scholar, He was a leading figure, It was this intellectual concern that fueled Bressler's research. How is this not G11? Regards, -- » Shadowowl | talk 15:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowowl, Please note that WP:CSD#G11 says This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. A page that is largely factual with some promotional phrases and some puffery needs to be edited to comply, not deleted, and is not a G11 candidate. Moreover, user pages, which are not indexed by search engines and may be works in progress to an even greater degree than articles are, should be given somewhat more leeway on this point than articles are. This was well outside the parameters of a G11 speedy. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks for explaining. -- » Shadowowl | talk 18:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Webmaster at Kentucky Today/sandbox

Hi. Although I would not agree with your assessment of the page, I'm happy to userfy it, but I am not sure that you have been clear enough with this user that he should not edit the page himself, regardless of whether he has declared a COI. I'll put it at User:DESiegel/Kentucky Today, okay? Deb (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Deb. I have not been clear about that because I do not agree that any such restriction is required in this case. I will post a connected contributor template, however, after I move it to Draft space. (by the way, the editor has not apparently declared a gender, but has mentioned the name "Robin" which surely could be female.) DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...or male :-) Well, if they carry on posting with that username, they'll get blocked regardless of whether they've declared an interest. I was on the verge of blocking them myself if you hadn't volunteered to work on the article. Deb (talk) 07:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User Page

Hello! I was reading your user page (because somebody has to make sure they go to use), whereupon I noticed your typo section. I was curious as to whether your typo of Wikipedia in that section was intentional or exactly the sort of thing you were referring to. (For the record, I found it quite funny either way). —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,, Compassionate727. No, I did not leave any errors on the page intentionally, and now that you have called my attention to one, I will fix it. That section has been unchanged for quite a few years, now. These days I have spell-check in the browser edit window, so things are better, but I still make typos when i am not careful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled Malas Tagging

Dear DESiegel, You mentioned you would look into Khaled Malas tagging for notability/promotional. The talk page attempts to address this but has been ignored by the tagger. What can one do? I have tried to do as you suggested and added further citations. Thank you! Coneyislandbaby lou (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coneyislandbaby lou, I have started a discussion at Talk:Khaled Malas, the proper place to discuss the issue. Please join that discussion. I have also been improving the bibliographic metadata in the citations on Khaled Malas, which will make it easier to see how good the evidence for nhotability is. If you add furhter citations, please provide as compelte data as possible, not just a URL. Thank you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU!Coneyislandbaby lou (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for helping with my duplicate article merge!

SaturdayLibrarian (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Bosman Twins - again

Dear Sir, You deleted a Wikipedia article about The Bosman Twins. I asked that the article be considered for reinstatement, however, you declined due to the bad behavior of the originator. That is an unfortunate occurrence and should have no reflection on The Bosman Twins or any future submissions. At this point, I am asking you to PLEASE email copy of the original article to me as a courtesy. An email directly to <redacted> will work just fine. I already tried to enable "email this user" and was unsuccessful. As I have said, I am not a sophisticated user of this very difficult Wikipedia widget. Simply put, I couldn't figure out how to do it. I hope this communication reaches you, and that you respond, excusing my ignorance. Thank you PR1775. Pr1775 (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pr1775, To enable the "Email this user" function, go to Special:Preferences. Scroll down to the Email options section. Fill in your email address at "Email (optional)*". Check the box marked "Allow other users to email me". You may wish to check one or mote of the other boxes as well. Then click the "Save" Button.

I did not not delete The Bosman Twins. That was done by pacemanSpiff. You asked a Teahouse question about it, now archived at [1] You were advised to ask at WP:REFUND or to start over. Someone editing while not logged in, perhaps you, did that, now archived at [2]. The response was that deletions for block violations would not be routinely restored. You asked again at the Teahouse on March 11, and i responded, offering to email a copy. I will now do so.

I caution you that you should not simply recreate the article using the text I am about to send you. That would violate he copyright of the blocked user and of any other users who contributed to it. Instead, please use this as a basis to rewrite the article in fresh words. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind feedback! Quick Question.

Mr. Siegel,

Thanks for your insight on the Lapin issue. I apologize for misunderstanding the disclosure protocol and did not intentionally seek to mislead readers/contributors. My understanding is that you have found some problems with the content in question. Is it fair to presume that I am free to make suggestions and/or request an edit with the proper disclosures and edit summary?

Your continued cooperation is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Aharonovlaw (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)Eyal[reply]

Hello, Aharonovlaw. Once you have made the disclosure you are free to post on Talk:Nicole Lapin (or any other article talk page) with suggestions, inducing suggested sources, suggested edits, and reasons why you think particular edits should or should not be made, or particular content should or should not be in the article. To call attention to a request for a specific edit, crease a new section on the page, describe your requested edit as exactly as possible, including reliable sources which support it, and place {{Request edit}} below the description. This will add the request to a list monitored by several experienced editors. Detailed instructions may be found at Template:Request edit. Other suggestions ca just be made on the article talk page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh to answer your other question, Aharonovlaw, the problems that I found were that the sourcing may not be sufficient to support the addition of he controversy section, and that laoin's quoted response is not currently cited to any source at all. If you have a source for that quote it would be helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your advice and help

Hi David. Can you help me? I'm struggling with the Wikipedia page I've been trying to create. It should be in draft mode but it's live. I don't know how to do my references and I reached out for help on a thread here and got dumped on. Can you look at the page, give me your advice and help me get it back to draft? — Preceding unsigned comment added by George David NH (talk • contribs) 21:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, George David NH. I have moved Judith Weinshall Liberman to Draft:Judith Weinshall Liberman, as you seemed to feel that it was not ready for the main article space, and I agree. I will give more extensive advice on citing sources later, in the meantime please read Referencing for Beginners. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. Once again, thank you for your input and advice. I'm reading the Ref for Beginners tonight and taking notes. I appreciate your willingness to help. Once I figure this out I should have an easier time if I write another page. GeorgeGeorge David NH (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by George David NH (talk • contribs) 00:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to do what I can, George David NH.I am sorry not to be of more help. I see you suggested a physical meeting with another Wikipedian. I am not geographically close enough to you to do that, but perhaps we could meet by telephone some evening? (I am on US Eastern time.)

I have made a few small edits to Draft:Judith Weinshall Liberman. Have a look at them as examples, and note the individual summaries on the individual edits in the history.

Here are a few specific pieces of advice:

Note that external links should not be used in the body of an article or draft, except as part of a source citation. (Those are links to sites outside of Wikipedia. If a person or topic is mentioned that already has an article on Wikipedia, do link to that article (as i just did to the one about Wikipedia). A few links may be placed in an "External links" section. These should usually not be commercial sites, and should be there to inform the reader, not to drive traffic to he sites. see WP:EL for more detailed guidance.
On referencing, the most vital part is to select good, reliable sources. A perfectly formatted citation of an unreliable source is worthless, while a bare URL ging to a good soure can fairly easily be fixed.
Note that sites consisting entirely or significantly of user-generated content with no oversight, like Geni.com or IMDB.com, are generally not considered reliable.
A citation, using the foot note method, should consist of a <ref>tag, followed by the content of the citation, followed by a </ref> tag. The content should consist of bibliographic data identifying the source, or a URL that links to it (if it is online, or ideally both. The desired bibliographic data are the title of the article, the title or name of the containing work, the name of the author (if available), the page number (if applicable), the date of publication (if available), the publisher (if available and helpful, it adds nothing to say that The New York Times is published by the New York Times Co), the ISBN and/or OCLC number for books, and he volume and issue for magazines and journals that use them. Not all of these are needed on any one citation.
Citations can be formatted using Citation templates but this is not required. I generally prefer using them, myself.

I hope that list is helpful -- what specific issues are you currently stuck on? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at Wikipedia:Meetup/Boston, George David NH. I don't see any listed in NH. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, David. Your help is very much appreciated as I'm actually losing sleep over this page I'm creating. Funny thing is, I write tech manuals and edit college thesis papers for a living and I still can't figure out the Wiki rules. Thanks for offering a phone consultation — I'll take you up on that if you meant it. Maybe we could look at my page at the same time and you can walk me through some things I need to change or reformat. I would pay you via PayPal if you have a PayPal account. GeorgeGeorge David NH (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC) Also, one of my main concerns is that I'm not sure how to save my draft while it's in the editing process. I don't want to lose my work before it's ready to go live. Can you tell me how to save my draft as I go? GeorgeGeorge David NH (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't lose sleep, George David NH. Please remember that there is no deadline. I did mean it, although we will need to find a time that works for both of us. I am actually at an editathon this morning.

I do not accept money for Wikipedia editing or advice, and anyone who asks for money for that is probably a scammer. I am most likely to be available in the evenings, say starting at 7-9 pm. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As to saving a draft, just save each edit with the "publish changes" button. That prevents work from being lost, but does not move the draft to the main article space. Be sure that the page name startts with "Draft:"More to come. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're kind of becoming my Wikipedia hero! Could we talk tonight (Friday), tomorrow or tomorrow night? I'll have a list of questions at hand so I don't waste your time. Also, I've noticed that when I've hit "publish changes" its posted the page online. GeorgeGeorge David NH (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George David NH "publish changes" does indeed save the changes to the Wikipedia site, where they are available to anyone online. But if the page is "in the draft namespace" (which simply means the page name starts with "draft") it is not considered "live", search engines do not index it, and it does not show up on default searcher from within Wikipedia, although it can be found if one knows how to look. I'll get back to you on my availability tonight. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My wife informs me that I will not be home this evening (Fri) as I'm supposed to help her friend move into her new condo. Could we chat on the phone sometime tomorrow or Sunday? — Preceding unsigned comment added by George David NH (talk • contribs) 19:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DESiegel Hi David. I'll be around all this weekend if you find time to chat on the phone. GeorgeGeorge David NH (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, George David NH. 2-4 pm start time today (Sunday)? See your email for contact info. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 11:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for everything, David.

		The Special Barnstar
		message George David NH (talk) 00:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review on 19nApril 2018

Hi David.

When you get a minute can you take a look at this page and let me know what you think? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Holocaust_Wall_Hangings

Do you think if I make your editing recommendations I could publish it tomorrow and see how it goes?

Thanks! GeorgeGeorge David NH (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, George David NH, i see that there is a problem at File:The Yellow Star.jpg, the image you uploaded for the draft. Eaxactly what did the artist say about permission when she sent it to youyou ; what emai, address sid you send permisison ino to here at Wikipedia, and when did you send it? Can you forward me a copy of the email that you sent, plesae?
Also,don't say Evidence: Will be provided on request, instead describe the exact terms under which it ahs been released. If a named license has been used, give the name of that license. Also, include a statement that release info has been sent to Wikimedia and when. More to follow on the draft itself. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Next, George David NH, there should be page numbers for the cites to the book Holocaust Wall Hangings. If they are all to the same page or range of pages, put them in the cite with |page= or |pages=. If they are to different pages, use {{rp}} just after the closing of the <ref>...</ref> (or <ref/>) tag. Notice that I have removed the duplicate citation details. That is what named references are for. Read the linked section please. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I forwarded two emails to you — they're the ones I sent to Wikipedia regarding the photos. Dave, I've never worked so hard on anything in my life. Ha!

Good, George David NH. Note the changes I made at File:The_Yellow_Star.jpg and make similar ones at all other images you have uploaded based on the same grant of permission. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me how to get to the pages for Hands Up and the Anne Frank photos so I can make the changes like those you made to Yellow Star? — Preceding unsigned comment added by George David NH (talk • contribs) 22:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be File:Hands Up from the Holocaust Wall Hangings Collection.jpg and File:Anne Frank's Hiding Place from the Holocaust Wall Hangings Collection.jpg, George David NH. You can find such things in the list of your contributions. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK - got it. I made those edits for Hands Up jpg and Anne Frank jpg. Hope I got it right

Yes the edits look good, George David NH. I gave the wrong link above for Hnds up, a copy & npaste error, no fixed but you found the right page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I redid the cites to the artist's 2002 book using {{rp}} so that it does not appear in the Notes multiple times, but still shows the relevant page number references. Were you going to do a "Critical reactions" section for reviews of the work, George David NH? If that can be added i think this is ready for mainspace. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know I tell you this all the time, but I really appreciate you and I could not become a Wikipedia writer without you.

you would manage, George David NH, but I hope I make it easier. Please don't forget to sign each and every talk page comment with four tildes (~~~~). DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. GeorgeGeorge David NH (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I put critical reaction content under "Reception and Exhibitions" by mentioning the NY Times and NBC, etc. But I can change it to "Exhibitions" followed by "Critical Reactions" and mention the NY times and others with some quotes from those who wrote the articles. Would that be better? GeorgeGeorge David NH (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like to separate critiques/reviews out, but there is no rule requiring that, George David NH. I think it is clearer to the reader. I missed that those had been included. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take the advice of my mentor and separate the two. Once this is ready to publish, how do I move it out of draft? GeorgeGeorge David NH (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is easy, George David NH. You use the move function. (follow the link for more details.) Under the Page menu, (in most configurations) you should find a link "Move Page". Click this, and select (article) in the left-hand box. Leave the actual title unchanged. Click the blue Move Page button near the bottom. That will do it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I separated Exhibitions and Critical Responses. If you like the change then I think we're good to go. Please advise if you think it's still a good time to go to main space and how I should go about moving it from draft to main space. GeorgeGeorge David NH (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are good to go. See directions for moving above. I think this is a good article (although a ways from a Good Article). DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thanks, Jedi Master George David NH (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chavonda Jacobs-Young Resource 1

http://www.allgov.com/news/appointments-and-resignations/administrator-of-the-agricultural-research-service-who-is-chavonda-jacobs-young-141101?news=854693 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pearlsa110 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Information for the ARS Wikipedia page

Could you please add the following to the ARS Wikipedia page?

ARS' largest research center -- also considered to be the largest agricultural research complex in the world -- is the Henry A. Wallace Beltsville Agricultural Research Center in Maryland.

http://web.centralmarylandchamber.org/Government-Agencies/Beltsville-Agricultural-Research-Center-1683

Pearlsa110 (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Broadridge

Hi there, just curious if you were still planning to come back around to the Broadridge discussion. I really appreciated your participation in both sections, and am hopeful you can help find a compromise with these requests. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Felsic2/Gun use

~~Did you not see that Gryffindor just gave up the mop for doing what you've done: using tools to override protection to establish your preferred outcome?~~ I understand that essays don't need consensus but I think you have erred in your belief about an outcome at MfD. I've tried to seek a Pareto-optimal outcome and your blind insistence will have repercussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris troutman, The page was, and is, move protected to require extended confirmed access for moves. That means that any extended-confirmed user was free to move as a normal editorial action. no use of admin tools was required. The logged reason for protection was an attraction to socks. I am not a sock. I did not change the protection level, or in any other way use admin tools. There was no community consensus not to move the page.

If you think that this should be deleted at an MfD, and that consensus to delete will be found, go ahead. I don;'t think such a deletion would be proper, nor supported by the deletion policy, but it might be that the community will disagree. Or feel free to start an RfC or some other community discussion on what place such a page should have on the project. My move violated no policy as far as i can see -- I reverted an editorial action that I disagreed with, transparently giving my reasons and inviting discussion. i have no intention of move warring if anyone moves this back, or moves it further. If you really think that I have violated some policy on admin actions, I am sure you know what to do. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you understand that essays don't need consensus, Chris troutman, then why did you write Why did you move this essay? I don't think you have consensus to move this screed into WP namespace. and then respond to Is consensus required? by writing It is. Or have you changed your view? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in that regard, so I struck that portion. I stand by my opposition to that essay. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of essays I oppose, Chris troutman, starting with WP:DENY, WP:DTTR, and WP:TNT. The usual way to indicate opposition is to make countervailing arguments on the essay's talk page, or to start a countervailing essay with what you think are superior arguments. I'd be happy to see your arguments agaisnt the points made in this essay. Such opposition isn't, in my view, a reason to delete the essay nor to move it out of project space. Not all essays persuade many people here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 14

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

plagiarism - apologies

David, it looks like I maybe wasted your time re that potential copyright violation. Very many apologies. I've learned a valuable lesson re "backward copying". Allan Mungall (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mojo Workings draft...

Hi DESiegel, sorry, but I asked for help more than one month ago. Unfortunatelly, I couldn't watch my Wikipeda page in the last month, because of personal reason. Today I saw, you left me a message in Teahouse about my request, regarding with 'Mojo WorKings draft page'. I couldn't find this message. Would you mind, please, send me a new one, if it is possible, I can receive it in my e-mail address: <redacted> Thanks in advance, Karcsúbey (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karcsúbey, you can find your question and my answer at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 746#Draft: Mojo WorKings. The heart of my answer was Since the previous decline on 7 December 2017, you added one word to the text, and one general reference to the draft ( http://www.bluesvan.hu/index.php?q=mojo+workings&s=keres%E9s) which was not used to support any specific statement in the draft. ... There are many statements in the draft not currently supported by inline citations. You need to support at least some of these, and cite additional published independent reliable sources that discuss this band in some depth, say several paragraphs each or more, for the draft to be accepted. I hope that is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

	Thanks
	Thanks for your review but as i mentioned before, it has nothing to do with promotion. Every website is doing something, even if it is a topmost news site. But yes, thanks for your advice. I will work on it. Rahulbtrivedi (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leandro Soto Ortiz

Initial contact, 5 April

Hi DESiegel, I changed the infobox to delete 'Cuban-American' and just put in 'Cuban'.

But which section title did you mean? A lot have been removed by other editors.

Other editors have played havoc, and I can't keep up with their suggestions -- one editor removed the one reference that I had in 'Notes and References' forcing me to halt all further edits of my own until I search their links. I didn't copy the reference, so now what do I do? That one reference was there before I started editing!

One editor said that "Biography: Wikipedia cannot reference itself". (I left a note on his talk page.) Another editor said 'Fix & format refs, move singel list-defined ref to inline ref' -- I guess this was the one that removed the one reference from "Notes and References", but it still shows up as [1] on the text page. (I guess I have to send him a note, too, on his talk page.)

I left a note at the top of the page asking everyone to please stop editing until I'm done -- I hope this is okay! Leandro Soto Ortiz

This is one of the hardest things I have ever done, and I'm getting mighty discouraged!

Lauraj210 (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lauraj210. I am sorry that you are finding things frustrating. Please remember that all the changes and previous versions are saved in the article history, so you can always look at what was present in any previous version. If you look at the history (usually on a "view history" menu) you will see a list of every change that was made, the edit summary that the editor left, and the timestamp, and some other information. If you click the "prev' link, you will see the changes made by that edit, which will help you understand what was meant by a given edit summery. For example, i made this edit yesterday. I commented out the unsupported parameter "ethnicity" in the info box, and changed the section header "Selected Pubications" to "Selected publications" fixing capitalization and spelling. this edit is the one that moved the list-defined ref to the body of the article. As you can see, The cite to http://proust.library.miami.edu/findingaids/index.php?p=collections/findingaid&id=103 is still in place, although differently formatted.

The edit summarized as "Biography: Wikipedia cannot reference itself" was this. "Biography" here refers to our policy on the biographies of living people which imposes stricter rules than other sorts of articles, to protect people from possible defamation and unsourced statements. It is also the rule at Wikipedia that Wikipedia articles may never be used as sources

The way we generally ask others to hold off editing for a bit is with {{inuse}}. I have replaced your informal msg with this.

Note that in general anyone is free to edit any article at any time. But a polite request to hold off is usually honored for a few hours.

To be honest, this article has not had a large number of edits, many are far more active.

I hope this is helpful. Do feel free to leave me a message here at any time, and i will respond as soon as i can. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DESiegel, I noticed the {{inuse}} -- thank you! I need a little more time than a few hours -- maybe by tomorrow. (Time is well passed for dinner!) I notice that {{Under construction}} invites others to assist...well, it is what it is! When I get back to work on it tomorrow, I'll replace it with {{inuse}} again, right?

I looked at the history page, but I found the 'prev' confusing...but less so now. I must be getting used to Wikipedia.

I'm now working on Selected solo exhibitions, which was taken out due to a lack of links. In one case, there was no link, so I have added a footnote (which is a duplication of a previous footnote (I used <ref name="name" /> for the second.) Cuba is very behind on internet access. When I get to the Selected group exhibitions, even where there are links, can I still put some footnotes in as well?

When you get a minute, would you check that I'm doing everything correctly? Lauraj210 (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lauraj210, It is looking significantly better, although work is still needed.

One point, there should not be a link to a web site outside Wikipedia in the body of the article, except as part of a citation (footnote). Those are known as "external links" and should be placed solely in the "External links" section, and then sparingly. (The "website" line in an infobox is an exception, but only for one site.) Using a citation for each fact stated is the preferred way to support stated facts. It should be done whether or not there is a link to another Wikipedia page (known as a "wiki-link") in the statement. Such a link is in no way required.
Secondly, sources need not be online to be cited. For example, to cite a newspaper that does not have an online edition, simply give the title of the story, the name of the newspaper, the date and page of publication, and the author/byline if stated. If the paper is not well known, the publisher and place of publication can be useful as well. The template {{cite news}} can be used for this purpose. To cite a printed book, use {{cite book}}, providing the title, author, publisher, year of publication, the relevant page or pages, and the ISBN if available. (Or the same info can be provided manually, not using cite book.) There is also {{cite magazine}} and {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}} for online sources that are neither books nor news, and several others. See Wikipedia:Citation templates and Referencing for Beginners. The basic idea is to give enough info that a reader could, with some effort, find the source in a library or bookstore, and can make some judgement of the source's reliability even without finding the source.
Note that a citation should not be just a link to a site about an institution or person. It should be to a reliable source that supports the statement in the article.
To mention and link to a template without using it, Template:Tl, which I used several times above, is very helpful. (Note that it gives a link to the template page, where the parameters for the template are normally documented.)
To display a piece of wiki code rather than using it, put it inside a <nowiki>...</nowiki> construct. You cna optionaly put that inside a <code>...</code> construct to highlight that it is wiki-code.
Yes, when you are done actively editing, please replace {{inuse}} with {{under construction}}, and reverse this when ready to resume.
Using "named references" (the <ref name="name" /> construct) is exactly the correct way to repeat a footnote. Thank you for using them properly.

I hope this is helpful. Feel free to ask further questions on this talk page, or to ping me on another talk page. I will respond when i can. Or feel free to ask at the Teahouse. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second Exchange, 28 April

Hi again, DESiegel, I wasn't able to work on the Leandro Soto Ortiz page yesterday... I prefer to talk to you, as you have been so helpful, going forward, if that's okay?

Regarding your first point: Got it! So the only one that has an internal link is Museo Nacional de Bellas Artes, and the rest are unlinked, right? Should I make reference to Big Orbit Gallery and Galeria Nine Menocal in the reference section, or is that unnecessary? I notice that other Cuban artists have linked to the city, so I did that for those two, but I have a feeling you'd prefer if I took them out. I also have noticed in other Cuban artist pages, there are ONLY links to the institutions in solo and group shows, and collections. (Adriano Buergo, Luis Enrique Camejo, to name two. Carlos Enrique Prado Herrera didn't use any links at all.) Theroadislong deleted four sections (Solo shows, Group shows, Awards and Collections) because they were unsourced. Confusion here, as I had already spent half a day finding Wiki-links for the Collections (and some external links, which I will eventually delete)...

I have been using the templates for {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, and in one case (Blanc Giulio) there is no online reference, but I think I have it covered okay.

I have copied the 'link without using it' and '<nowiki>' (you see I have used it already) in my growing personal Wikipedia file...

I put some Wiki-links into the bio -- I think I've done it correctly.

Regards, Lauraj210 (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Lauraj210. Several points:

First of all, There is no deadline. Edit when you cna, don't worry about your schedule for editing. You made no promise of when any given edit would be done.
The lesson from the deletions by Theroadislong is that sources are vital. That is true whether there is or is not a wiki-link. The source for each exhibition should be one that indicates that the exhibition took place, and that Ortiz participated. It should also confirm the date, if possible. Above all it must be reliable. Find and insert sources before worrying about possible wiki-links or external links. There is no need to cite a source merely to show that a particular gallery exists, but if we have a Wikipedia page about the gallery (or other exhibit venue) it can be wiki-linked. But such a link is in no way a substitute for a source showing that the particular exhibition occurred.
Wiki links are put in to provide context and to lead the reader to relevant further information. Just what should be linked is a matter of judgement, there is no hard and fast rule. See MOS:OVERLINK for some suggestions on what should not be linked.
Sources do NOT need to be online, provided that they are published, and that a reader could verify them, posisbly only after taking some trouble and spending some money.
In this edit I changed a link that went to a disambiguation page Installation to one that went to Installation art using a Piped link. This is how to make a wiki-link when the title of the page is not the desired link text. It is done often on Wikipedia.

I hope these points are helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Third Exchane, 28 April

Lauraj210, I visited the articles you linked to above, Adriano Buergo, Luis Enrique Camejo, and Carlos Enrique Prado Herrera. In each case there is a serious lack of cited sources. In each case I have added tags pointing this out. The last one may be deleted unless at least one source is added to the article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DESiegel, Thanks for the links. I removed the 'performance' link -- everyone knows what that is...but thanks for the piped link. I read the article and I can see that it would be very helpful.

I hope that [[Carlos Enrique Prado Herrera]] will be notified by email, so that he can copy his page before it's deleted, if he doesn't have time to make references right now? I would hate to think of him losing all that information!

Good night, Lauraj210 (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lauraj210, on the Carlos Enrique Prado Herrera article, no one is ever notified by email of on-wiki actions, unless that person has a Wikipedia account, and has set up automatic notifications for certain kinds of actions. For example, i receive emails when anyone (other than myself) posts to my user talk page. That article was created and largely edited by Herosfanes, who was notified on his or her user talk page. All that is needed to prevent he proposed deletion is for anyone to add a single citation to a reliable source to the article that supports any one fact there. Any editor may do this. (I see that since yesterday some nine citations have been added.) Also, on Wikipedia, "deletion" does not actually erase an article, it merely hide it so that only admins can see it. If an article is removed through proposed deletion, anyone can later request it to be undeleted at WP:REFUND. Even when an article cannot be undeleted, an editor can request a copy of the text by email, and it will usually be provided. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On another point, please be careful with nowiki tags. If the matching /nowiki tag is not provided, any wiki markup on the rest of the page is ignored, which can significantly change the look of the page. One way to mention such a tag is by using the template {{tag}}. This produces output such as <nowiki>...</nowiki>. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Exchange, 30 April

Hi DESiegel, Thanks for the thanks on Selected group exhibitions! And good, I'm glad that [[Carlos Enrique Prado Herrera]]'s editor added references (I spent a half hour trying to figure it out, before I noticed the heading above...)

Is reference #1 okay, or should I take it out altogether, and just leave it in External links? This was already in the body of the text before I started editing...

I added four more solo shows. I can't find a reference for the Vienna show, and the Big Orbit Gallery's archives don't go back that far. Can I still leave at least the Vienna one in, if not the other one?

In Further reading: Marelys Valencia -- the synopsis is in English, but the article itself is in Spanish. When I typed in the ISBN, the doi/tr. was automatically generated. Only one language is allowed, so I think I should take out language=en and replace it with language=es -- what do you think? (I think I leave the doi/tr., right?)

I noticed in one of the artist's pages that the references had two categories: References and Further reading. I'd like to do that too, to make the page neater. Is it as easy as making two level 3 headings? I realize I have to anchor the references...I will re-read that section to make sure I don't lose them.

What's necessary for Collections? I looked up more than forty artists, and of all those who had Collections listed, not one of them had any footnotes. At this point, with all the other footnotes, Leandro is not being fraudulent to say that he is collected among these institutions. I don't know what could be added -- except the contracts! (And I understand that external links are not allowed...) But I don't want [[Theroadislong]] to object once again.

You've been very patient with me for asking so many questions! Lauraj210 (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Lauraj210 I am pleased to help when i can. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I Have separated this section of my talk page into subsections, as it was getting a bit long. To respond to your various points, not in order:

The current ref #1 in the article, the "Guide to the Leandro Soto papers", looks like a perfectly acceptable source to me, and the "biographical note" does indeed support several statements in the article. No problem there that I can see.
It is more usual to put "Further reading" into a second-level section of its own, but it could be put into a third-level section paralleling the "notes and references" section. Or if you intend that facts from items in the further reading section should be used to support the article as a whole, although not specified statements, the section should be titled 'General references" instead, and should definitely be 3d-level section under the same 2n-level heading as the noted, which are displayed wherever the {{reflist}} template is placed.

The distinction is that Notes or References support specific facts in the article, while "General references" were consulted and used to help build the article, but ae no being indicated as supporting specific facts. "Further reading" indicates sources that a reader might usefully consult, but which were not used in writing the article, or not much. Any given source will normally appear in only one of these.

Yes, just changing or adding the section heading makes a section into a different level.
Yes, the Marelys Valencia source should use |language=es in my view. It lets people know that the major info there is in Spanish. It is a somewhat odd situation for the abstract to be in a different language from the main article, and I don't know of a way to fully indicate this.
There is no special or specific rule for "Collections". The general rule is that any fact in an article must be verifiable, and that any controversial or negative fact about a living person must be directly supported by a cited source. So must any direct quotation. Any uncited fact about a living person may be challenged, and then must be cited or removed. However, when many facts are already supported by citations, it is less likely that others of a similar type would be challenged. I think you may leave all the collection items in the article until and unless someone does challenge them. Do remember that offline sources are acceptable.

I hope this is again helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Stilt (ceramics)

I've thrown in a couple more alts.©Geni (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've approved them. Looks good, Geni. Thanks. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard sandbox draft submitted for review

I think I may have accidentally submitted the contents of my sandbox for your review. (I briefly so a notification about it, but now I can find it.) If so, please disregard it. Apologies for the inconvenience and thanks for your patience. DrLuthersAssistant (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DrLuthersAssistant. Your sandbox is not currently submitted for formal review (under WP:AFC), and as far as I can see never has been. You did at on4e point ask me to briefly look and comment, but that is quite different. It does look to me like a rather though outline and plan for a replacement article. Good luck. Feel fre to ask any questions you might have, either here or at the Teahouse. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding photos

Hi David. I received this message on Wikipedia last night regarding a photo upload to the Holocaust Wall Hangings page. Please let me know if I should solve this issue by sending the email correspondence from Weinshall Liberman to: [email protected] Will this solve the issue? George David NH (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Anne Frank's Hiding Place from the Holocaust Wall Hangings Collection.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Anne Frank's Hiding Place from the Holocaust Wall Hangings Collection.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion. If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by George David NH (talk • contribs) 10:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help newbie create page

You expressed an interest in creating a page for me a while back and I was hoping you would still be interested. We just need a simple page so that Facebook won't flag us as fake news.

This is the text I posted on "requested articles" that can be used for your reference:

Kentucky Today (A daily online newspaper and news service based in Louisville, Ky. The newspaper contains original news, sports and feature stories in addition to news provided by the Associated Press. The Kentucky Today news service provides state and government news coverage, college sports and features to 18 local and regional newspapers throughout Kentucky (two sources listed below).

A recent story by Kentucky Today appeared in The Washington Times, Miami Herald, U.S. News & World Report and many other newspapers after being picked up by the Associated Press.

Kentucky Today was launched in November 2015 by the Kentucky Baptist Convention "to help provide Kentucky Baptists with news and perspective on the social issues of the day." The online newspaper free and only requires registration to comment on stories. Kentucky Today requests a brief article in Wikipedia similar to small print newspapers located nearby, such as The Oldham Era and The Kentucky Standard.)

(Sources= Kentucky Today website-- http://www.kentuckytoday.com

Examples of newspapers using Kentucky Today's news service-- "Advocate moving Accent, H&G content to A sections" https://www.amnews.com/2017/03/11/advocate-moving-accent-hg-content-to-a-sections/, "Sun partners with Kentucky Today for UK, state news" https://www.winchestersun.com/2017/03/10/sun-partners-with-kentucky-today-for-uk-state-news/

Washington Times reprints story-- https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/22/half-the-man-he-used-to-be-kentucky-pastor-drops-2/, U.S. News & World Report reprints story-- https://www.usnews.com/news/healthiest-communities/articles/2018-04-22/half-the-man-he-used-to-be-kentucky-pastor-drops-240-pounds, Miami Herald reprints story-- http://www.miamiherald.com/news/article209578009.html,

Kentucky Today launch-- http://www.bpnews.net/45831/ky-baptists-elect-first-african-american-president

Examples of what we are looking for: The Oldham Era Wikipedia page-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oldham_Era, The Kentucky Standard Wikipedia page-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kentucky_Standard.)

I understand that I won't be able to edit, only suggest edits. But all we need is a page like any other news organization.

Thank you so much! CornetetR (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

photo uploads

Hi David. I sent the Anne Frank's Hiding Place photo from the Holocaust Wall Hangings page, as well as some for the Judith Weinshall Liberman page I'll be working on, to [email protected].

On Sunday, I was told on my talk page by a Wiki admin that the Anne Frank photo was going to be removed in a week. So, I sent that photo and some others as attachments along with emails from Liberman confirming that we have permission to use them. Please confirm that I've taken the right steps to have the photo kept on the page. It's confusing. The photo aspect of Wikipedia is probably what I need the most help understanding at this point. George David NH (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George David NH, I see that a copy is on commons, at File:Anne Frank's Hiding Place.jpg, as well as a copy at File:Anne Frank's Hiding Place from the Holocaust Wall Hangings Collection.jpg on en-Wikipedia. I would re-send copies of the permission email, which i think should be sufficient,m to both [email protected] and to [email protected], and mention both file names in the email. In addition, I am pinging AntiCompositeNumber and Magog the Ogre to this discussion. While i know the general rules, I do not work with image copyrights all that much, and those editors can probably help us understand what is still lacking, if anything, to make the permission granted by the artist Liberman for that image properly clear. The emails you forwarded to me seemed sufficient, but there may have been some aspect lacking.

Eventually we will want to ahve only one copy of the image, preferably at commons. The article should probably be edited to make sure that the commons file name is used. Then deletion of the copy here on en will not matter.

I apologize for not having responded to your earlier message more promptly. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC) @AntiCompositeNumber: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, David. I will re-send the emails as you recommend. Please don't worry about promptness. I just appreciate the fact that I know I can count on you to get back to me and that you point me in the right direction. George David NH (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked, George David NH, and the article Holocaust Wall Hangings is already using the copy at commons, which seems to have a longer time limit to get permissions issues straight. The copy on en-Wikipedia now seems to be redundant in any case. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should add, George David NH, that Holocaust Wall Hangings has now been approved as a Did You Know? item, and a link to it will appear on the main page of Wikipedia at some not yet determined future time. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, David. Not bad having an approved Did You Know? first time out the gate. I owe you one. George David NH (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I get a DYK credit when it runs, as nominator and co-author. Actually, George David NH, many decent new articles can qualify for DYK with a little extra work. The standards are significantly lower than for GA. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK - that makes sense. I'm starting to work on the Weinshall Liberman bio page soon so I'll be in touch. I'd like to eventually produce GA quality work. George David NH (talk) 01:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Thompson (television presenter)

You declined speedy deletion of this article on grounds the AfD did not appear to be describing the recreated article - presumably, therefore, because G4 excludes "pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". The editor who recreated it stated that they restored it from a mirror (albeit one 18 months old when the article was deleted) and I would urge you to look again at the deleted version because I believe it was still substantially identical (it was then at Jonathan Thompson; unlike you I cannot look at it but there's a contemporary mirror of it here).

If you still conclude it is ok, I guess that having been copied from a mirror it now falls foul of WP:RUD and instead the original page should be restored, or at least the histories should be merged, to sort out the attribution problem that now exists.

Dorsetonian (talk) 06:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information, Dorsetonian, I will have to look into that further. Because of how the deletion and move of a dab page was handled, I was not easily able to see a copy of the version as it was when deleted by AfD, so my actual basis for declining the speedy is that the reasons stated in the AfD discussion do not apply to the version just created, which would mean that the versions were not "substantially identical". In general a new version that significantly addresses the reasons for deletion will not be deleted via G4. However, if this is taken directly from a mirror, unless it was edited in the process, that begins to look incorrect. I will look into this one furhter, but nor right now -- probably wihin the next 24 hours. i take your points about attribution. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Dorsetonian (talk) 06:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Compare with [3] - the last diff before the AFD closure. It's a clear repost. Also, the rationale of the nominator shouldn't have any impact on whether a page meets G4 or not. SmartSE (talk) 08:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Root Insurance Company Wiki page

Dear DESiegel

The page I recently created—Root Insurance Company—was deleted for promotional content by you and then protected from future creation by another admin. I’m writing to find out how I can a) make the content less promotional and b) have it either created by an administrator or regain permissions to do it, myself.

Root Insurance is a notable organization, offering insurance based primarily on driving data collected from a smartphone; it’s important for the general public to be informed of the quickly progressing insurance market and tech world.

The article does not promote the business, but rather explains straightforwardly what the car insurance company is and how it differs from others within the market. I have revised wording that may have appeared promotional in my first upload and have backed up all statistics and quotes with reputable external citations. In fact, I’ve used already approved Wikipedia pages with similar content as a reference point. So, I’m very confused as to why it’s been deleted twice.

Are you able to provide specific feedback regarding areas within the article that appear promotional in nature so that I can adjust? Or can you point me in the direction where I can receive more feedback? (I’ve already read the pages on Wikipedia about promotional content and feel like I followed the rules). Also, how do revoke my loss of posting the site? Thank you for your assistance; I certainly wish to follow Wikipedia’s rules and structure.

Sincerely, Sara Starnes (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Sara Starnes[reply]

Hello, Sara Starnes. In the most recently deleted version, such phrases as the nation’s first entirely mobile-based insurance carrier (cited to a press release) Root became the first insurance company in the nation to offer a rate reduction to Tesla drivers who use the AutoPilot feature. (also cited to a Press release) Root’s app was the first UBI tracking device that is automatically installed with the download of the app and doesn’t require an outside device to attach to the car (cited to a news story which reads like a redigested Press release), and instead of offering UBI discounts as an option after customers are already established,[12] Root uses UBI during the test drive to determine rates based primarily on driving behavior for every policy (sourced to the same news story) are all very promotional in tone, in my view. Much of the article red like a list of selling points or a company flyer, not a neutal fact-based article. Please read our guideline on promotion in articles.

Wikipedia articles should be based largely on independent published reliable sources. This does not include press releases or interviews with company employees, or "news stories" clearly derived largely from press releases with little or no independent verification or reporting. For there to be an article about a company, there must be multiple independent sources which discuss the company in depth -- see WP:CORPDEPTH and our guideline on the notability o companies. Note that on Wikipedia, notability is used in a special sense. It does not mean importance but rather the degree to which uninvolved third parties have taken note of a topic, generally by writing and publishing about it in reliable sources.

I do not know if you are employed by Root or are connected with Root in any way. If you are, you need to follow the directions at WP:COI for disclosing a conflict of interest, and if you are being or expect to be paid or compensated for editing about the company, you absolutely must follow the rules at WP:PAID. That is a very strictly enforced policy here.

If you think that a neutral, non-promotional version of an article about Root can be created, I strongly urge you to do it as a draft and obtain review before attempting to make the text into a live article. Since the article has been protected against re-creation, such a review will be required to get any article on the topic created. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some steps which, if followed, often produce good results:

First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our specific guideline on the notability of businesses. Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there.
Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed.
Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request at the Teahouse or the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

       Thanks, DESiegel, for your thorough reply; I really appreciate it. I'll revamp the article and submit it as a draft.

Sara Starnes (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Terry M. McGovern, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Omar El Abd (omrr) Deletion

Hello, hope all is well, I'm the artist manager of Omar El Abd (omrr), Recently both articles were deleted, i would like to clarify that omrr is the stage name of Omar El Abd, they are the same person, i thought using the real name and referring to stage name is the best practice, Would appreciate it if you let me know how to improve /fix the issue. Thank you, have a great day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisemenandthepainters (talk • contribs) 07:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I responded at User talk:Wisemenandthepainters#Copyright and paid editing. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do I do as an adoptee?

I recently saw you adopted me. So what are you going to do and how will I do this? HorsesARENice^{Ride me to my talk page} 15:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well HorsesAreNice, you must first decide if you want me as a mentor or adopter.

That means that you agree that you plan to stay active on Wikipedia for a while at least, that you agree to try to be the best editor you can, and to listen to and seriously consider any advice that I give you on how to act as a Wikipedia editor, even or perhaps especially if it is advice you don't want to hear at first.
If you accept me, I will agree to take questions from you and to respond to them as promptly and helpfully as possible. I further agree to keep an eye on your edits, and if I see a problem, to let you know and advise you what to do or not to so as to avoid or reduce any possible problem. I agree to listen to you, and try to understand you point of view, and if possible, advocate for you if you are having a dispute on Wikipedia.
I will give you the best honest advice I can in all such situations. I will try to have your best interest, as well as the good of the project, in mind in all our interactions. I will be not only civil but friendly, to the limit of my abilities, as the situation allows. But I will tell you the truth if I think you have done or are doing something unwise.
You will agree to ask me questions if you are unsure in any given Wikipedia-related situation.
Beyond that we can define the relationship as we please. We may or may not choose to work together on editing articles or other pages. If there is anything you particularly want from such a relationship, please mention it and we will see what we can work out.
Of course, either of us can end the relationship at any time.

Are you interested in entering into such a relationship on those terms? You can read about me on my User page and you have no doubt seen me giving advice on he Teahouse, so you have some idea of what I am like in such a role. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I need a mentor.

Hello Sir,

I am a new user on Wikipedia and my dream is improve the content on Wikipedia and probably become an Admin one day. I want to be adopted, and I will be grateful if you can adopt me.

Thank you in anticipation of your response.

Warm regards,

Jerusalem666 (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jerusalem666. I see that you are already making some small but useful contributions. Please read my comments about mentorship to HorsesAreNice in the section above, and see if you would care to accept a similar arrangement. If you would please post here saying so.

Do be aware that it will take at least 1-2 years of steady contribution to make admin these days. Nor is it that much of a thing, so i hope you will focus more on making worthwhile contributions, perhaps on promoting particular articles to GA or even FA, or other goals on Wikipedia. If you do, adminship may come along in time without you ever expecting it.

Oh, and if you have any particular issues to raise or questions to ask, please do so.

What do you say? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you DESiegel. I am very interested in a similar arrangement to user - HorsesAreNice. I am willing to listen to your advice at all times.

Jerusalem666 (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then, Jerusalem666, we are now mentor and mentee. I have marked our user pages accordingly. Please do ask me any questions you might have. What sort of project or edits are you currently planning on, if any? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you DESiegel for adopting me. Currently, I am making small edits to Wikipedia pages to familiarize myself with the system. I asked for suggestions for pages to edit and it was provided. I will have questions in a couple of days from now. Jerusalem666 (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Alessio1233

Just as an FYI, I went ahead and processed this unblock since the blocking admin had said they were fine with it a few days ago, and I was of the same mind as you. Didn't think you would mind, but I still like telling people when they were already involved. Hope all is well . TonyBallioni (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Blanche McVeigh

On 9 May 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Blanche McVeigh, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Blanche McVeigh's home workshop had a Sturges printing press so heavy that the floor needed to be shored up to support it? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Blanche McVeigh. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Blanche McVeigh), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Weinshall Liberman

Hey David. I'm working on the JWL page and have two questions that I hope you can answer. I remember that you said that Google makes the call on what's posted on their site, but I want to be sure that there's nothing I need to do on my end to resolve these issues: 1. When I do a Google search on "Judith Weinshall Liberman" this is the first link that appears:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Judith_Weinshall_Liberman.jpg Is there a way to remove that? 2. The Holocaust Wall Hangings page is still not showing up anywhere in a Google search. It still brings me to 2 pages of deleted image files and one page for the "Hands Up" piece. Thanks George David NH (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, George David NH, Wikipedia has no control over when or how Google indexes or does not index a page, except that some pages are marked with a "NOINDEX" flag, which Google generally honors. New pages are normally so marked for 90 days, or until then have been reviewed by the new page patrol which ever comes first. I just checked, and no such flag is on Holocaust Wall Hangings. One thing that might help: If there are other articles from which a legit link to the article can be made, they should be. Google indexes pages in significant part by following links to simulate a browsing user, as I understand it, and the more inbound links that exist to a page, the more likely it is that google will find one and index the page. At the bottom of a google search is a feedback form, where users can react to the search results. i do not know how much attention google pays to such feedback. Google is careful not to provide many detail on how it decides which pages to index or how highly, so as not to aid those who might want to game the system. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good input. Thanks! George David NH (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When you get a minute will you take a look at the JWLiberman draft I'm working on (I'm redoing the entire page based on what I now know about writing for Wikipedia)? Her parents were fairly notable, so I feel that I should mention them, but how do I incorporate them into the page — or should I omit them altogether? I don't think that a "Family" section is what you'd recommend, but I'm unsure where else to refer to her parents. The rest of the page is going to be completely redone once I figure out where/if to mention her parents. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Judith_Weinshall_Liberman&action=edit George David NH (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a quick look, George David NH.

You could combine much of the current content of "Family" with the first sentence from "Education" and call it "Early life". In that case i would add a sentence recording the year and place of her birth. However, in that case the sentence about her marriage doesn't fit well. Or you could keep it "Family" or call it "Personal life". In the latter case the sentence about her birth could still be added there, in the former it should probably go in a separate section. The amount of content you now have about her parents and relations is pretty good, there should not be much more unless we have 3rd party sourced comments on how their lives affected hers. The article should clearly focus on her, not on her family members -- i have seen some that give the impression that the article is trying to ride on the coat-tails of other people's notability, particularly articles about a spouse or romantic partner of a pop celebrity. We don't want to look like that. I would be inclined to omit the first names of her children -- there are precedents either way.
Am i correct that she worked as a lawyer for some time after attending law school and before studying art? if so, that should be made clear.
I would move her place of birth out of the lead section -- In fact I'll do that much right now.
Please remember that the |website= parameter of a cite template shoudl never be the full URL. It should be the name of the site, and the web domain only if there is no other name. Please remember to provide author and date information when available. Please do not include referer info in a cite URL --- edit it out.
Remember to keep adding cites as you go. I've made a few small changes.
Please link to pages with Wiki-links, as Draft:Judith Weinshall Liberman, not with URLs, and especially not URLs that leave one in edit mode.
By the way, are her children's books also Holocaust-themed? The way the lead sentence is phrased seems to imply that. If that is not correct, it should be reworded a bit. If it is, it should be more explicit perhaps.

This looks good so far. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really good info, David. I'll follow your advice. Thanks. My only question is regarding this statement you made as I don't understand what you mean: Please link to pages with Wiki-links, as Draft:Judith Weinshall Liberman, not with URLs, and especially not URLs that leave one in edit mode. George David NH (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To tell me where the draft was, in your meswsage above in this thread, George David NH, you included the URL https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Judith_Weinshall_Liberman&action=edit instead of the wiki-link [[Draft:Judith Weinshall Liberman]]. The "&action=edit" opens the page in editiing mode, as if i had gone there and clicked "edit". Not usually a good idea. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK - got it. I see what you mean. George David NH (talk) 01:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) George David NH, you currently have a cite to https://decordova.org/art/ on the sentence Weinshall Liberman studied painting, sculpture and other artistic mediums at the Art Institute of Boston, the School of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Boston University College of Fine Arts, Massachusetts College of Art and the DeCordova Museum School. But that site merely describes the DeCordova Museum School, it doesn't confirm that Weinshall Liberman ever went there. The cite shoudl be to a source, possibly her autobio, that says she attended. If th school has published a list of alumni that would also be a reasonable source, but an autobio is ok for that sort of non-controversial fact.

If you are to combine family and education under a joint heading, i would suget 'Biography" rather than "Early life" as by the end of law school and art school this isn't so early. "Early life usually goes thoguh high-school or an undergraduate degree. And by the way if we know what degrees, if any, she earned at those schools, they could be included, particularly the higher ones. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make that change (Biography - good idea) and yes, I know what her higher-level degrees are and will mention those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George David NH (talk • contribs) 01:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

Hey! I'm not sure how this works but I saw you're up for taking newbies under your wing. I'd love to get guidance to gain an understanding of Wikipedia beyond the basics I've been doing. Please do get in touch, hoping to grow beyond CE & link edits & basic page creation. Thank you! TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 07:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheOneWorkingAccount. Please read the section #What do I do as an adoptee? above, and the section #I need a mentor. above, in which i discuss what I see as an adoption/mentoring relationship. Please then take a look at the sections #Judith Weinshall Liberman, #Your advice and help and #Leandro Soto Ortiz to see such a relationship in operation. If you like what you see, say so, and we can confirm a relationship.

Please do tell me what sort of things you have been doing, and what sort you hope/plan to do, and what problems if any you have been having. I will do my best to help. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DESiegel. Yes, I've gone through the sections. Basically I've been making small contributions but I want to do more. However I simply get stuck wondering what exactly to do to grow, I frequently check the New Pages Feed for things I can do but many are things I don't have the right to do (eg - deletion of articles that are clearly not meant to be there and other such tasks) and many that I'm not able to understand. I take on small jobs such as the list of pages which need infoboxes and add those. But I need guidance on how to grow and how to carry out more meaningful tasks. TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all excellent things to do, TheOneWorkingAccount. Don't worry too much about rights: If you see a page that you think should be deleted, tag it for proposed deletion, or, if and ONLY if it clearly fits one of the criteria, tag it for speedy deletion. Or simply tag it for whatever problem you see, such as notability or insufficient sources. Have you enabled Twinkle yet? You will find it VERY helpful with such tagging, I think.

I would urge you to start trying to do more content creation. Find a stub or short poorly developed article on a subject of some interest to you. (If you can't think of one, I can offer some suggestions, particularly if you tell me of any general subjects that interest you.) It could be a long-existing stub, or a recently created one from the new page feed. However, if you choose a recently created item, be careful of conflicts with th4 user who created it and might be working to develop it further. Choosing an older item might be better. Once you have chosen it, look for additional reliable sources, and use those plus already cited sources to expand and improve the articel. Also remove any promotional or unsupported content. Don't choose a highly controversial topic. What do you think?

Another thing you could do is start reading and perhaps commenting on the discussions at WP:AFD. Read a few and try giving your views on why the article should or should not be deleted. Remember to be WP:CIVIL, and to base your view on Wikipedia policy, not just on WP:ILIKEIT or the reverse.

Shall I mark us as mentor and mentee, then? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at this series of edits to Mimi Mondal, which you edited recently, TheOneWorkingAccount. This is a start in adding content to a stub. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you DESiegel, yes you can definitely mark us where ever it appears! I've now enabled Twinkle, looking forward to getting the hang of it. Yes, content creation is definitely what I'm looking to do, I did create two requested pages from some Wikiprojects. However I do work best when given tasks, so if you point me to some articles I can develop, that'd be great. I'm particularly interested in English TV & film, and want to get into developing pages for various personalities across industries, especially Indians (entertainment, business, etc). Thank you so much for the help, this is greatly appreciated. TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jack.org

Hi DESiegel. Not sure how to take this forward, but I noticed this article which needs major clean up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack.org. I'd assume things like their mission statement would not belong, and it would need CE to reduce its advertorial tonality. Any way you could guide me on getting this article up to standards? TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 10:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, TheOneWorkingAccount. There are several things which could usefully be done. First, and most mechanical, get the proper cite metadata into the sources, such as the changes I made in this series of edits. That will help indicate who wrote the sources, and whether any are related to the organization. Second, search for and add additional high-quality sources (if the exist) and add any facts properly derived from those sources. Thiard, remove any puffery or promotional language. Fourth, try to evaluate the previously existing sources, and see if any of them are not reliable. If there is a clear case, remove them with an edit summary explaining why. If there is any doubt, post on Talk:Jack.org listing sources that seem less than fully reliable. Fifth, evaluate overall notability, in light of WP:ORG. If it seems questionable, after searching for additional sources, tag the article as having debated notability with twinkle, or start an AfD if lack of notability seems very clear. If in doubt, just tag. If you ahve any questions about any of that, do ask me here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC) Oh, by the way, it is better to provide a links as [[Jack.org]] than as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack.org, in future. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you DESiegel. I have gotten started with fixing the citation metadata, I will also be able to add in any high quality sources as you have mentioned. It is the evaluation of sources where I foresee getting stuck, however I will post those on the talk page as you've suggested. Wish me luck! TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 10:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prerna Kohli

Hi DESiegel. Can you help me clean up this page Prerna Kohli?. I can see that its advertorial in nature and believe the whole section on 'In the Media' is a bit much. But while I'm comfortable with fixing codes etc, this is more subjective and I wouldn't want to remove anything I'm not supposed to. Do let me know, thanks! TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HEy DESiegel. Don't want to be a bother, but just wondering if you could help with this? TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder abo9ut Prerna Kohli, TheOneWorkingAccount. I have made several edits to that article, and will make more, but am out of time this morning (it is am here). The key is to read the supplied sources, and remove anything not supported by the sources. Anyone wishing to revert can do so, and then sources can be discussed on the talk page as per WP:BRD. Improving the source metadata is also helpful, in my view, as it adds context. Feel free to make edits, or to comment further on the article talk page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't want to rush you at all DESiegel. It's only because I feel I'll be able to learn by seeing how errors are fixed. I have already commented on the talk page regarding the whole 'in the media' section, which I doubt belongs on the page. Just wanted to check - if information comes from a reliable source, does it always deserve to be on the article, even if it's promotional? TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, TheOneWorkingAccount, we don't include every sourcable fact, or our articles would in many cases be huge. We do not want to give WP:UNDUE attention or prominence to a particular point-of-view, especially a minority or WP:FRINGE POV. We don't want to include unencyclopedic detail -- for example we do not normally include the mailing address or telephone number of a business, although we may link to its official web site that does list such info. See WP:NOT for much more on this. What to include is a judgement call and a matter of consensus. However, significant facts that have been discussed in independent reliable sources usualy do get included, even if they are positive and could be seen as promotional. The article should reflect the range of available reliable sources and the opinions expressed in such sources. If many sources have positive things to say about a topic, then our article may well be quite positive in tone, as long as it is factual and does not praise in Wikipedia's voice but only in opinions explicitly attributed to others. When a person is, in effect "famous for being famous" as a number of media figures are these days, we report what the sources say about that person, honestly, without whitewashing or demonizing. Note that the standard of notability is used to determien whether or not Wikipeedia will have an article on a topic. But once a tpic is judged to be notable, individual facts about that topic ar not judged by the notability standard to decide if they will be mentioned. Instead they are judged by sourcing, relevance, due weight, and common sense, and any disagreements shoiuld be settled by consensus, on the article talk page if possible, or in dispute resolution if need be. Note also that although Wikipedia articles should be neutral, our sources need not be and often are not, as long as they are reliable. Do feel free to examine my edits so far on this topic. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Got it DESiegel. In this case, would I be correct to remove the entire 'in the media' section in the article? Because that simply lists topics she's given interviews about, and to what publications. I've never seen that on a page. Or would the correct process be to wait until someone replies on the talk page? TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 07:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Don't want to be a bother, but could you please guide on the above? Thanks! TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 07:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Holocaust Wall Hangings

On 10 May 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Holocaust Wall Hangings, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Holocaust Wall Hangings (example pictured) are a series of fabric banners created between 1988 and 2002 illustrating the plight of the Jewish people and other minorities during the Holocaust? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Holocaust Wall Hangings. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Holocaust Wall Hangings), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reignwolf wiki page amendments

as i described in my help topic question i aid in the management of this band and i have removed FALSE information. the sources that were cited are NOT reliable sources just because they were posted on the internet. a gentleman named Ryan Crase used to help this band well over 6 years ago and has falsely taken credit for numerous band accolades. additionally he attempted to hijack the band website and was forced to released control after a lawsuit. the only valid information in the below is the name of the venue where the band performed their first show. we'd like this permanently removed and we will update with accurate facts soon. if you need my email address, company affiliation, email address for the founder of the band etc. i'd be happy to provide to you.

THIS NEEDS TO GO AWAY:

After recording an album under his own name, Seven Deadly Sins, Cook began recording in Memphis, Tennessee with Matt Chamberlain and Soundgarden's Ben Shepherd.[4] Immediately after finishing up in Memphis, Ben Shepherd introduced Cook to his friend, Ryan Crase who would eventually convince Cook to move to Seattle and take the role as his manager. Upon Cook’s arrival to the states Crase knew a suitable band name would be needed to help develop the project further. One afternoon while listening to the album, "LOVE" by The Cult, Crase came up with the name “Reignwolf” when he noticed the track listing on the back of the album cover which features the song "Mother Wolf" listed right above the song "Rain." Some spelling was immediately altered for impact. Cook’s first official show under the Reignwolf moniker premiered days later, at The Sunset Tavern in Ballard, Washington. It was only the 2nd time he had ever played with his new band featuring Joseph and Stitch, who Crase had introduced to Cook only a week prior to that show. [4] Cook performs as both a one-man band accompanying his guitar with a kick drum,[5] and with bassist David "Stitch" Rapaport and drummer Joseph Braley.[4]

Thank you for your assistance! Steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copenhagenslang (talk • contribs) 21:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Copenhagenslang, I neither need nor want your email address or other contact info, and if you post them I will delete them unread. However, you can send this info to [email protected] with a request that they confirm your identity. Include your user name and the name of the article you are concerned about, in this case Reignwolf. However, I do not think it will make much difference, as Wikipedia relies on published sources, not the personal information of those involved in a situation.

The information you deleted, or most of it, and I restored, was and is cited to apparently reliable sources, specifically:

Bienstock, Richard (September 8, 2014). "How Reignwolf Became a One-Man Blues-Rock Army". Rolling Stone. Retrieved March 27, 2017.
Beckmann, Jim (June 29, 2012). "Reignwolf: A One-Man Rock Show". NPR. Retrieved March 27, 2017.
"Roadies Rocks with Republic". Hits Daily Double. June 15, 2016. Retrieved March 27, 2017.

I do not find it credible that any of the above sources were somehow faked, particularly the first 2. Are you seriously claiming that the information which appeared in Rolling Stone, or the info which was broadcast by 'NPR was "FALSE"?

If you want this information removed, or different information substituted, you must first post citations to sources of at least equal reliability supporting the different information to Talk:Reignwolf. Then, describe there the change(s) you want made, and add {{Request edit}}. Do not attempt to make these changes directly -- they will be reverted again. I, or another experienced user, will review your request, particularly including the sources provided, and act as may seem appropriate.

Please note that when reliable sources differ on what the facts are, Wikipedia's usual practice is to provide both versions, with the appropriate sources attributed and cited. so that readers may know that there is a dispute. This is done unless it is very clear that one version is mistaken, and no reasonable person culd accept it.

Please read our policy on Verifibility and our related policy on the biographies of Living people which applies here. We do not add content simply because someone claims it is true, without a supporting source. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC) @Copenhagenslang: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you adopted me

I'm back! Sorry I haven't replied very much yet. But I have school and I've not been very active over the weekday. I was also on a short break. But I won't finish school until May 31st. But that is when I'll be most active. So I'll agree to be active after May 31st. HorsesARENice^{Ride me to my talk page} 20:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine, HorsesAreNice, school or work or other off-wiki activities often have to take priority. Nothing says that you must be active all the time or at any particular time, just a general intent on to be active in future. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WTF?

Your response to this was totally and completely inappropriate. You took a heinous personal attack on myself that was probably veiled enough to avoid sanction, and wasn't obvious to anyone that they were talking about me, and replied to it including a link to my username? In my book, you've just personally attacked me by linking me to their ridiculous bullshit. YOU...not them. You should have redacted their whole statement as trolling. You need to pull your head out of your ass before you start editing, bud. FIX IT, or this isn't over. John from Idegon (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The proper response to such an attack John from Idegon is to refute it, not to redact it. Particularity on the Teahouse, i do not redact even semi-legitimate questions, and I revert such redactions by others. Other Teahouse reader need to know that such edits as you made are legitimate, and that complaints are noticed and responded to, not swept under the rug. Many new users incorrectly think that there is a caste system on Wikipedia, which can be exacerbated by the tone some experienced users take at times. This needs to be countered at every available occasion.

I suppose that I could have omitted your user name, but since I was in any event going to link to the article, the history would have made it obvious -- as it was already obvious to any regular. (I was quite sure that you were the subject before I ever followed the links. Confirmation took seconds.) Clearly saying that I did not believe what I am sure was a false accusation is not an attack, but if you think otherwise, remove your name as per WP:RPA. If you really think that I have attacked you by the above edit, feel free to take the matter to ANI. I will not be reverting or altering my edit. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tea Tree Oil

Hi. Please explain where, in the cited sources, the phrase "There is evidence of efficacy" which you restored,Diff is supported by the sources? Thanks, and good luck with getting the next ten years finished! -Roxy, the dog. barcus 20:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. You have made 35 edits, including some to this page, since I asked this question. Is it your intention to answer? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 07:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find your response a bit ignorant. ANI? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 05:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't responded to you at all, Roxy the dog, for which i apologize. I intend to review the sources more thoroughly and comment on the article talk page. I will not, of course, edit war. I will try to do that tonight, but cannot promise. I had delayed because a proper review of the sources will take more time than the small edits i have done since. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mention ANI in any comment about Tea Tree Oil or about you. Nor do i see any reason for such a mention. Could you have seen a mention of that in the section above, in my response to John from Idegon on a totally different issue? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry too. I feel a bit of a chump actually, and hope that you'll forgive me. The only thing that I did sensibly was wait for as long as I could between posts. This has meant that I've calmed down over all this. I've read the sources on a number of occasions, and can't see support for efficacy as wikipedia requires it. What I didn't see is that some may see evidence. I reverted you earlier too. The ANI comment above was me querying if you wanted me to go to ANI over this, something I realise is a silly thing to do. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 00:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Caraboo

Considering the advice you gave in the Teahouse, I was hoping you would take a look at the recent edits at Princess Caraboo. I'm going to step back and hope a resolution can be reached. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheOldJacobite. I seem to be missing something. I looked at Princess Caraboo, its history and its talk page. I don't see any apparent edit wars, any recent reverts, any apparently dubious edits, or any obvious issues in need of resolution. Please, what is the issue from which you are stepping back? I am happy to assist if I can, but I could use a pointer here, please. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 11:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. It was late, and I failed to check the link. I was referring to the article about the film, Princess Caraboo. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 11:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I eventually spotted that from your contributions. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, TheOldJacobite. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I apologize for derailing your move discussion. I'm pissed off about that essay and I shouldn't have used that discussion to voice my displeasure. Now a bunch of editors are agreeing that it needs deleted but that's not the forum for such a discussion and prior deletion efforts already failed. My selfish comment wasted your time. I'm sorry about that. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Several other editors appear similarly pissed off at that essay, Chris troutman and I don't by any means fully support it myself. I could wish that they would concentrate on making their case in a counter-essay, or just ignoring that one until it is actually used to support including such incidents in an article about some particular model or type of firearm. It is, of course, no more and no less in project space under a different (and IMO more accurate) name than under the present name. But no one is holding a gun to my head, so to speak, and making me respond to comments about that essay. Nor is it my discussion, it is the community's, even if I don't like where it goes. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you really feel that your earlier comment was improper or unhelpful, you could strike it or post a revised comment. I am curious, if we assume that the essay will not be deleted or userfied, would you prefer it at the current name or at a more specific name? If you care to answer that, of course. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your contributions to the community and as such, would prefer they have maximum efficacy. My desire to opine wrecked your return on investment simply as a matter of clicking and typing. I recognize you don't have a dog in the fight; you started a discussion which should have led to a consensus for or against the proposition. I think the damage is done; there won't be a meaningful discussion about the essay title especially since the essay's proponents cannot admit their own partisanship. As for me, I provided a couple suggestions in that discussion. The essay is political and the title should reflect such. Gun control advocates often fall into a couple cognitive biases and misjudgments and there's no way I can fix that. We know that Wikipedia has a left-lean so that's not the demographic to reject that essay. Our editors so often want Wikipedia to reflect what they themselves believe to be true it must gall many that Wikipedia hasn't done more to champion the abolition of firearms.

I want to dispel your idea about a counterargument. While free speech principles include the idea that despicable arguments needs to be answered by counter-arguments rather than the regulation of speech, I don't think that works here. We have, for example, essays supporting inclusionism and deletionism on Wikipedia because it's a native philosophical divide in our community. There isn't a consensus view across all of Wikipedia but it's a fair disagreement assuming editors aren't !voting ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT. Having an essay that advocates using primary source material to address the prevalence of firearms in criminal acts is politically partisan, violating NPOV. It's the thin edge of a wedge meant to draw an arrow from the existence of a weapon to the deaths and injuries resulting. It also invites partisans of that stripe to write anti-gun narratives, displacing pro-gun editors only interested in the apolitical technical details of the gun involved. The effect of this essay is to confuse correlation with causation. The use of something like a scary black rifle in a shooting ought not be covered using primary sources because it allows editors to get away with original research, all of which is faulty because it's selecting on the dependent variable. I actually have a policy degree so I know of what I speak. Allowing the essay to exist in WP space makes it more likely to gain traction. Writing an opposing essay that we should keep gun violence out of gun articles would either be similarly partisan or simply rehash the arguments the first essay discusses. I will think on this and perhaps write up something more coherent for The Signpost. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_May_2#Category:Views_on_homosexuality

Any decision? This has 8 for Delete, and 1.5 for Keep and appears to be well past completion date with clear consensus. Chrisdevelop (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chrisdevelop, I don't close this, an uninvolved admin will. It will happen when someone gets around to it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vascon Engineers

Hi Sir, Greetings, I have submitted the article Draft:Vascon Engineers according as per Wikipedia policy. I tried my best to follow the guidelines of Wikipedia. We have no intention to promote our company. All we wanted to have a Wikipedia page just like other real estate companies have. Even the article has only two sentence, we are okay with it. It would be great help if you can review the article or suggest me what more can be done to get it approved. Thanks --183.87.201.141 (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IP Editor 141, please see my comments at Draft talk:Vascon Engineers. I htink you will be very well advised to register and use a username/account if you want to go forward with this. Please do note that many perfectly fine companies are not notable and do not have Wikipedia articles. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir, thanks for your help. I cannot registered because I have been blocked by an editor SpacemanSpiff as a suspected sockpupet/fake account, even when I was not sock. I was registered on Wikipedia for the first time. User:Fyomancho is my real account.

Sir, I'm working in Vascon and I get monthly salary, will it be called PAID as per Wikipedia's Paid policy?

I believe, Vascon is table as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Publicly_traded_corporations. Thanks --183.87.183.51 (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you have been blocked, you must not edit without logging in. You will need to appeal your block if you think it is unjustified. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you are employed by Vascon, and expected to edit Wikipedia as part of your job, or if your edits will be considered when your job performance is reviewed, or will affect your employer's view of you, or is done during work time, then you clearly fall under WP:PAID. If you were to edit . If it were completly done on your own, in off-time, you would still have a Conflict of Interest. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be assisting a block-evanding editor. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mentor for Rob Sherratt?

Hi David, thank you very much for your help at TeaHouse today. I would be very grateful if you would consider being my mentor for a short time, while I become more experienced? Rob Sherratt (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, ref St. Nicholas Monastery Church, Mesopotam. I was there. I took the photos. The Photos have DCIm data proving source and location. I spoke with the Papas. I attended the festival on Sunday 20 May 2018, last weekend. I am a first hand witness and credible source. Is this not good enough for Wikipedia? Is there anything else I can do to resolve the "problems" you have flagged, or shall I just give up, because this is taking way too much time and effort for me? Rob Sherratt (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I did not explain more fully sooner, Rob Sherratt. No a "fist hand witness" is not ever "good enough for Wikipedia". Articles must be based upon published relaible sources. What you saw is not published, unless you write it up, say as a travel article, and get it published in some reliable source. Note that your own web site or blog would not be considered reliable unless you are a noted expert in the field of travel, or perhaps on that region or some other relevant field. This does not mean that you are not credible in the usual sense of the word -- no unpublished or self-published first-hand account would be accepted. No one else can rad your mind to know what you saw, and a random reader has no way to k now who you are, or what reputation for accuracy you have. Reliable sources have editorial control, so that someone besides the writer stands between the writer and the reader, and helps ensure accuracy. Reliable sources have reputaion at stae, which is an incentive to get things correct, and if they fail to do so, that is part of their reputation and can be taken into account by the reader. Wikipedia, lilke all encyclopedias, is a tertiary source. It depends on what other have alre3ady written about, largely in secondary sources, plus some primary sources. See WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY. Wikipedia is not a place to post original accounts of personal experiences, or articles based on such experiences. What is needed in the St. Nicholas Monastery Church, Mesopotam is to find published sources that describe the church and the festival, if possible. I hope that makes things a bit clearer. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you David, that makes things much clearer for me. I have arranged to meet Reshat Gega who is an acknowledged expert in Albania with many published papers. I know that Reshat is willing to help provide good reference documents. So please bear with me, I am determined to get this right! Rob Sherratt (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Upage

Another user pointed up this userpage I thought I should point it out here as Oshwah seems to be inactive at the moment here is the userpage: [4]Thegooduser Let's Chat 03:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't yet then you probably forgot to redact the first userpage revision.Thegooduser Let's Chat 03:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Thegooduser. I don't think this meets the standard for revision deletion, simple removal by edit should be sufficient. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OkThegooduser Let's Chat 03:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have a gut feeling that that user is a sock. But I could be wrong. Thegooduser Let's Chat 03:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might well be right. Or it might be a former IP editor. Or a user with a new username, but not editing abusively. I don't feel that there is enough here to open an SPI, nor to block preemptively, nor do do a WP:NOTHERE block. However, if the user continues to edit disruptively, a block may well be in order. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not want to open a SPI like you said, there's not enough evidence. But I'll have their Upage on my watchlist. Thegooduser Let's Chat 03:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Abel_Sierra_Madero

Hi DESiegel,

 I have just read a conversation where you responded to Robert McClenon regarding declining my submission. I don't understand from the notification why it was decline. Can you please help explaining why it is decline and how if I resubmit, I can have another reviewer read it for approval that is not Robert McClenon.

I appreciate all of your help, Pandora — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandoraperez04 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Weinshall Liberman page

Hi David. I've been working on the Judith Weinshall Liberman bio page. It's not done (especially the last section Self Portraits of a Holocaust Artist) and I haven't added a photo (or two), but when you get a minute can you take a look at it and provide me with your input? She writes children's books, plays, and poetry, creates sculptures and has many paintings outside the three Holocaust series, but I think I should stick to her background, education, and Holocaust-related works (and I can provide external links to info on the non-Holocaust related pieces). Plus, there is very little verifiable information on any of her works other than the Holocaust series — some but not much — for the most part, all info on those things are found on her personal website and sites like Amazon. What do you think? Draft:Judith Weinshall Liberman George David NH (talk) 00:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few comments and suggestions, George David NH:

In the "Education" section, there is a sentence: Weinshall Liberman returned to Israel and served as editor of the Economic Review, the Jewish Agency in Jerusalem, and as a lecturer at the School of Law and Economics in Tel Aviv. I put Economic Review in italics, since it is a title. It had been linked to Economy of Isreal. I removed the link because there is no mention of Economic Review in that article. Also, she was an editor and a lecturer, but what did she do for or with the Jewish Agency? That is unclar and it makes the sentence read awkwardly in my view.
Later in the section it says: In 1956, Weinshall Liberman turned her attention to the arts and began taking classes in painting, drawing, fiber arts, sculpture and other artistic mediums at the Art Institute of Boston (now Lesley University) This is sourced to www.lesley.edu/. But that is merely a page by and about Lesley University, it does not in any way verify that Liberman attended Lesley. That sentence should be cited to a source that actually verifies her attendance. A list of alumna published by the school would be ideal, or a newspaper mention of her attendance, but even a cite to her autobiography would be better than the current cite. Indeed no source at all would be an improvement. A source that does not support what it is cited to support is misleading and makes the reader question all the sources in the article. There seems to be a similar problem with the cite to https://www.law.umich.edu/Pages/default.aspx a bit earlier. Double check all cited sources for this, a page jsut about an institution that is mentioned, but that does not verify the stated facts, should not be cited. That is what a wiki-link to an article about the institution (if there is an article) is for. Several of the citatiosn near the end of the "Education" section seem have the same issue.
When citing an online source, the |website= or |work= parameter should be the name of the site. For example if one were citing a Wikipedia article, one would use work=Wikipedia. Do not use the domain of the site unless it has no other name (a form such as website=en.wikipedia.org should only be used on sites with no actual name) and never use the full URL.
The section "The Holocaust Paintings" includes the sentence the color palette of each painting is mostly red, black, and gray to represent the pain, the suffering and death experienced throughout the Holocaust The colors used are a fact, but what they represent is an opinion. This would be better written as "the color palette of each painting is mostly red, black, and gray. According to <noted expert> this represents the pain, the suffering and death experienced throughout the Holocaust." with a cite to where the expert says this, or failign that, a cite to where Liberman herself says that this was her intent.
In this edit I changed a cite to a source that does not support the stated fact to one that does, and improved the citation data. Take note of what I did and do likewise on other cites.

I am out of time this morning and will review the rest of the draft later. I hope this is helpful so far. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks, Dave. I understand your recommendations and will attend to them. If you don't notice those changes to the page it's because I may take a break from it for a few days. Not sure. George David NH (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made the changes you suggested to Draft: Judith Weinshall Liberman and added additional text to finish out the page. Can you take a look and see what needs to be corrected before posting? Also, do you think I should add two photos of her work or should I just leave it at her bio photo? I have to be honest, I tried to include two photos and followed the upload process and coding rules as closely as I could, but I've forgotten how to do it correctly because the images are not showing up. I'm leaving two examples of this issue on the page for you to take a look at. I have reqested that Liberman send me a photo from her Self Portraits collection if you think I should show an example from each series. Thanks. George David NH (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the changes you made to the JWL page. Thanks. Let me know what else you think should be tweaked before I make it live. I'm getting burnt out on digging around for usable information on Liberman. ha! I started working on that article back in March. It's been a challenge. For my next article, I'm going to try putting together a non-bio. Maybe an article about a location. George David NH (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok here are some suggestions, George David NH:

We still don't have any indication if she ever practiced as a lawyer before turning to art. If this is known and can be sourced, perhaps from her autobiography, it would be nice to include.
There is currently no source cited to indicate her attendance at any of the art schools, Not absolutely essential, but again, would be nice, if available.
I would include a bibliography section, consisting of a bulleted list of all of her published works, art and literature, just listing the publication into for each. Most can be cited to sources already in the draft, although a published work can be an implied (uncited) source about itself, if full publication info that would let a reader find a copy has been provided. One reason for doing this is that otherwise the "Archived books" section looks like a group of UNpublished works. Another reason is it buts her output together in one place, and is usual in an article about a creative person.
The draft currently has an image of her, and two images of her works are included. That is probably enough for now.
The section on the wall hangings now reads: Scenes of the Holocaust, Maps of the Holocaust, and Epilogue and are designed with a color palette of mostly red, gray and black – red: blood and fire; gray: suffering and despair; black: death If this is the artist's opinion, say so more explicitly. If it is that of some critic, say who, and cite.
Finish completing bibliographic data for any sources where it is still needed, please.

I hope all this is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. We still don't have any indication if she ever practiced as a lawyer before turning to art. If this is known and can be sourced, perhaps from her autobiography, it would be nice to include. She never practiced as a lawyer, so I cannot make mention of that.

2. There is currently no source cited to indicate her attendance at any of the art schools, Not absolutely essential, but again, would be nice, if available. There are no records of her attending the schools since it was such a long time ago and she did not earn degrees from any of the schools.

3. The section on the wall hangings now reads: Template:TqqI If this is the artist's opinion, say so more explicitly. If it is that of some critic, say who, and cite. I'm unsure what you mean by this. Please advise.

4. Regarding a bibliography of her works, when you have a free minute, please take a look at her website, jliberman.com, to see why I'm unsure how to create one. Her list of work is extensive and runs into nearly every area of art. If you look at the top of the page under Writing, Plays, Musicals and Music, and Visual Art Series, there are many subcategories, and most of the work is unverifiable other than through her personal website or a sales site such as Amazon.com. Should I mention the more notable works only? Some of her artwork is significant, while some appear to be more hobby-centric and certainly not notable. Most of her books are self-published and don't appear to have much going on as far as outside acknowledgment, so should we still include them in a biblio? George David NH (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC) To note: I went ahead and created a bibliography of "notable works" — those works of art, literature, and picture books which are verifiable beyond info on her website or a sales page. Let me know what you think. George David NH (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some responses by number, George David NH:

1. The article could say "Although she graduated from law school, she never entered practice as a lawyer". This could be cited to her autobiography, perhaps.

2. Very well, then we will have to leave it uncited, or cite only to her autobio.

3. I am sorry. I made an error in markup. that should have read: : The section on the wall hangings now reads: Scenes of the Holocaust, Maps of the Holocaust, and Epilogue and are designed with a color palette of mostly red, gray and black – red: blood and fire; gray: suffering and despair; black: death If this is the artist's opinion, say so more explicitly. If it is that of some critic, say who, and cite. (I was referring to the meaning or purpose of each color: blood & fire, suffering & despair, and death.)

4. Yes, a selected bibliography is a god idea then. But it should include as much publication information is available, the name of the publisher when there is one, the ISBN when one has been assigned, and anything else that would identify the work or assist in finding a copy, particularly for the books.

Otherwise, things are looking good to me. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. Thanks for the input. I created the Bibliography section and included all the pieces mentioned on the page. I'm not sure what else to add since all of her publishing houses are self-publishers. I want to avoid the look of self-promotion. Please take a look at the biblio when you have time to confirm that I set it up correctly. She has 48 picture books and many paintings that are not part of collections. Should I mention a few of those even though the primary source will be her website or autobiography? George David NH (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just received the message that I uploaded the photo Boarding twice and I was told that I could lose my editing privileges if it happens too many times. The person removed the photo from the Liberman page. I've been trying to figure out the rights and wrongs of posting photos but still haven't mastered it. I've sent Wiki all the photo permission information I received from Judy a month or so ago, so what's the issue? Any idea what I need to do here? George David NH (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC) Here's the message: Your image or other content, File:Boarding.jpg, was recently deleted in accordance with our process and policies. You have recreated this content after it was deleted; please do not do this. If you would like to contest the deletion, please visit Commons:Undeletion requests and follow the instructions there to have the deletion reviewed. Recreating deleted content outside of process is not allowed, and doing so repeatedly may cause you to lose your editing privileges. Thank you for understanding.[reply]

Hi Dave. I changed Bibliography to "Notable Works" - seems to make more sense - let me know what you think. George David NH (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ronhjones (Talk) 20:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC) George David NH (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly the only answer is wait. OTRS for commons is at a 87 day backlog (c:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard). OTRS will undelete the image once they have validated the permission. If you tell me the ticket number I will have a look at it (but I'm not good with permissions, so I normally leave them alone - too easy to get it wrong) - I see above you said "I've sent Wiki all the photo permission information I received from Judy a month ago" - I will state, that forwarded e-mails are usually rejected (too easy to fabricate). Ronhjones ^(Talk) 16:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George David NH (talk), can you provide Ronhjones the OTRS ticket number? He might be able to help. I would suggest "Selected works" or perhaps "Significant works" rather than "Notable Works" only because "notable" had such a technical meaning on Wikipedia, and we don't want anyone thinking that the article or its author is claiming that all the listed works should have separate articles. But sin e it isn't a complte bibliography, a change is probably a good idea. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found the OTRS ticket number and sent a help request to User:Ronhjones. I also changed "Notable Works" to "Selected Works." Check it out and give me your input when possible. George David NH (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dave. An update: I've taken the next step (correctly) to having the photos approved by sending all the necessary information in one email with attached ticket#2018041410007775 to [email protected] and [email protected]. The next step is to wait to hear back from them. Once the photos are approved, I think the article now at draft:Judith Weinshall Liberman is ready to make live.

User:Bounty_HunterxD

User:Bounty_HunterxD what should i do with this, lol... Thegooduser Let's Chat 01:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DESiegel. You have new messages at CASSIOPEIA's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi DES, Discussion - Same subject above by User:Thegooduser. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thegooduser and CASSIOPEIA: I don't see any reason why either of you should do anything at all about it. Bounty_HunterxD is not doing anything particularly harmful, although s/he has not done anything particularly useful either. I advise you simply to ignore him until and unless he does something that actually causes a significant problem. What makes you think you want to watch that user page? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thegooduser:, Hi DUS, same thought here and thanks for the reply at my userpage. Hi, Thegooduser, just gracelessly ignore the statement made. Cheers and have a good day. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI; I am watching that page, because I feel like that user will be making more "attacks". Or I could be wrong.Thegooduser Let's Chat 00:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish, Thegooduser, but please consider Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

tangent transplant

Since this really isn't pertinent to the discussion of "née" and such, I'm bringing my question here. You said, I have been a professional in a computer science field for over 30 years, with a strong inerest in mathematics as well, i had neveer heard of this usage of "iff" before this discussion. Are you saying that you've never seen "iff" used in computer science and mathematics, or are you saying that you've never seen "iff" used outside the fields of computer science and mathematics? Personally, I learned it in my ninth-grade "Introductory to Chemistry and Physics" and (whichever grade-level-appropriate) mathematics classes. I'm just curious, so, thanks for your time. — fourthords | =Λ= | 15:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

fourthords, I am saying that I have never seen it in any context at all. I have seen the phrase "If and only if" frequently, in HS and college mathematics, in professional and non-professional CS contexts, and elsewhere. I have, to the best of my recollection, never seen this abbreviated as "iff". I assumed it was a simple typo for "if", and that is what I would still assume if anyone but you used it, unless the other meaning was made very clear, such as by expanding it on first use. I have been a fairly voracious reader of mathematics literature on a fairly advanced although not fully professional level, ditto for Physics (which was my undergraduate college major). I own and have read things like Krasner & Newman's World of mathematics, the Feynman Lectures and many other works on a similar level. I have a pretty good memory for locutions. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(a) I wasn't challenging your knowledge or awareness on the topic at all; we're just pseudonymous editors here. I just wasn't sure what you were saying on that other page. (b) I used "iff" (and have, in various contexts over many years) because I've assumed that anything I was taught in a ninth-grade idiot-teen-level course is a commonplace shorthand. Mayhap not. Anyway, we actually have more information here on Wikipedia if you're interested: iff#Origin of iff and pronunciation. Be well! — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite interesting. I didn't feel challenged, i was just trying to make the context of my experience and observations clear. Obviously this is not a recent or unattested neologism, based on the citations in the article you kindly linked above. Just one i had not previously encountered. Thanks for the info. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC) @Fourthords: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say...

...I ran into an adoptee of yours at User talk:HorsesAreNice. E Eng 04:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:British Rail Class 700/GA1

DESiegel, it's too bad this went through MFD, because these sorts of abandoned reviews are regularly speedied via G6. There's no history there to save, since no reviewing was actually done. Just so you know for the future... BlueMoonset (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset I would argue that those are not valid G6 deletions. The fact that the GA review was delayed because a reviewer took on the task and was unable to complete it may be relevant history in the future, as may the fact that a particular reviewer took on more than s/he was able to handle. In any case, once any legitimate editor objects, the deletion is not no-controversial, and so G6 does not apply. I was not the only editor to object to this deletion nomination. And the GA reviewing instructions suggest that such deletions are not nee4ded. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The history will be there on the article talk page, that a review was opened and closed, and (in the edit summary) why. A G6 is clearly no longer relevant here, but I very much believe that a G6 for never-started and abandoned review pages is perfectly valid. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Mimi Mondal

Hello! Your submission of Mimi Mondal at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright question

Thanks for your help with resolving a copyright question a couple of days ago on the Teahouse page. Your instructions are clear and in future I think I'll be able to handle it myself! Lindsark (talk) 13:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Mimi Mondal

Hello! Your submission of Mimi Mondal at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi DESiegel! You created a thread called Wells of Life at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by User:Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Parker

Hi-I started an article about Kathleen Parker (politician). I just founded out you started an article about the same person also The two articles needed to be merged and I have no problems with that. My apologies for any problems I may had caused with this. Thank you-RFD (talk) 10:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Tata Nexon

Hi, I add the citation (and the template citation) at the page Draft:Tata Nexon. Is correct? Can you move the page in Tata Nexon? --Lanciatype840 (talk) 11:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David:

I appreciate your offer to create an article on C.N. Otis

I would like to mimic the Frank Lloyd Wright pages with his complete list of works etc I will try to do so in Wikidpad but may move straight to an HTML webpage

then I will send you a link to it and you can decide if it should be on Wiki

While I can understand the need for all the rules and regulations that entail doing Wiki pages it is more than I want to deal with in my elder years

Lew Lewis buttery (talk) 06:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lew

A cup of tea for you!

Hello DES. This post is one of the most succinct yet thorough summing up of that thorny situation that I have seen. Nice work. Enjoy your tea and the weekend ahead. MarnetteD|Talk 18:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you DES

For your guidance on adding a page re the TV show "Matter of Fact with Soledad O'Brien." I will follow your guidelines. TomTcampo123 (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite welcome, Tcampo123. Feel free to ask further questions here or at the teahouse. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Question

You've been helping with this file: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Press_photo_2_Brothers_on_the_4th_floor_A-700x998.jpg#Summary

My issue with the copyright flag is that I was given the photo by one of the artists and the photo is a work for hire, meant specifically for publicity purposes. How do I note the rationale, which I can't even find a way to do that? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Albanymike (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Albanymike, If it was a work made for hire, then the hiring party (I suppose the subjects or one of them, or the band as an entity) holds the copyright, not the photographer. I understand that, the picture of myself on my user page was a work made for hire for political publicity purposes, as you can see at File:David Siegel.jpg. But permission "to use the photo on Wikipedia" is not good enough. If the photo is being freely released, then permission needs to come directly from the copyright holder to "permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org" and the photo must be under a free license, one which permits anyone in the world to reuse the image for any purpose at all, including for commercial use, free of any royalty. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more details on this process. If the photo is not under a free license, it can only be used under a claim of fair use which requires a statement, known as a "fair use rationale" explaining how the image's use meets all the non-free criteria. The Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials explains how this rationale is to be constructed. The template The template {{Non-free use rationale 2}} can be4 used to construct such a rationale. I hope this is helpful to you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 228

Hi DES, Good day. I PRODed the above article 2 months ago (April 2018) and the result was a delete. The same title is recreated and I tried to PROD it the again. However, the entry enclosed the 1st PROD and the result (the blue window) along with the new PROD info. As such user Finngall reverted the edit as they thought it was a closed entry. I wrote to Finngall but receive no reply so I redo the PROD again and the edit again reverted by Finngall - [5]. What can be done? Thanks in advance for your assistance. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to CASSIOPEIA on my talk page--feel free to chime in there if you prefer. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 07:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

including Finngall, Hi DES, help not needed. Sorry for cluttering your page. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, CASSIOPEIA. Substantive reply at User Talk:Finngall, DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being an Admin does not make you special

Repeatedly posting in MfD contrary to concensus and against a recent community decision is not helpful. Being unaware of the decision excuses some posts but now that you are aware, please don't undermine the newly codified operating procedure. There is no value in keeping non-notable drafts around for rejection after rejection. It does not encourage editors to take up other topic and it wastes volunteer time. At this point you are also wasting other volunteer time with misleading statements that must be corrected least they be seen as an Admin stating policy. Please stop. Legacypac (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no slightest intention of stopping, Legacypac. Indeed I expect to accelerate. I will be clear when I am stating policy, and when I am giving my own views. I cannot and do not regard the recent RFC as definitive, and I will continue to argue against what I think is a very poor policy, and to argue for the retention of drafts which i think are being improperly deleted or nominated for deletion.

I have never claimed to be special because I am an admin, and I resent your suggesting otherwise. I ask you to show any diffs where I did so, or apologize. That cums under Casting aspersions. I have not used or suggested using admin tools in any way not thoroughly approved by consensus, nor in any way at all in the current dispute over drafts. Nor have I cited whatever prestige may attach to my admin status (if any) as a reason why my views should prevail. I do claim to be an experienced editor, as worthy of having my views considered as any other such editor, but that does not make them law, and I never claimed that it did.

The "new operating procedure" has not been "codified" in more than the vaguest way. Perhaps my objections will lead to it being clearly codified, or perhaps to it being changed. In any case I will express my objections as long as i see fit, in accord with appropriate policy. If you think that should be forbidden, ARBCOM is over there.

In the meantime, I clearly cannot in good conscience advise users to submit drafts via AfC. Perhaps some alternate informal review mechanism can be devised. No one is obliged to respond to my comments, unless they feel that my arguments are worth engaging. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you were misusing tools I am pointing out being an Admin will not be a defense against stopping you from being disruptive. When you say things are a certain way it comes with the implied suggestion they are because you are an Admin. Legacypac (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you chose to to read my comments that way, Legacypac. I never said or implied that, i never even referred to my status as an admin in any of these discussions until you brought it up. why? Because i knew perfectly well it wasn't relevant. Are you saying that making comments at an MfD (or several of them) is disruptive and should be sanctioned? Good luck getting that to fly. Are you saying that proposing to make (not even making) a bold edit, with full intentions of complying with WP:BRD is disruptive? Good luck on that one too. If I do anything you think is disruptive, you are welcome to take any measures you think proper, but I will insist on diffs and citations of policy that is begin violated. If you can't provide such, I will argue for a solid boomerang result. If you can't point to something I have done that is actually disruptive, you would be well advised not to describe me or my actions as disruptive. I am still waiting for your apology. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Implying I'm not following policy at MfD is one problem you need to correct. You are using MfD to advance a position that runs directly against a recent RFC. Keep digging. Legacypac (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How many times did you, Legacypac, express the opinion in various MfD discussions that the previous version of WP:NMFD was "Stupid" or otherwise ill-advised? 20? 30? I suspect I could find at least that many diffs. Your position then ran directly against a recent RfC, much of which is still in place. If my comments are disruptive, so were yours then. But my comments are not disruptive. Deletion policy in particular is often shaped by what happens at individual deletion discussions. It is therefore perfectly appropriate to argue policy positions during an MfD discussion, and hope that the example helps them find traction. Nor have other policies been changed by the recent RfC. In particular WP:BITE is still policy, and I judge that your recent MfD nominations are not consistent with it, although I will grant that you have been acting in good faith and in compliance with your view of policy. Others may disagree, of course. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for all your help with editing, reviewing, moving, etc my Bernstein quote article! Maineartists (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK?Vexations (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@DESiegel: I came upon Mashoof during some NPP patrolling and thought it might be of interest to DYK. Not my area, but perhaps you'd like to nominate?

Thank you, Vexations I'll take a look. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bad close

You closed this as an involved Admin (one actively campaigning for some of the things this essay seeks) [6]You have no business doing that. Along with your continued other actions at MfD including misrepresenting political outcomes your activity at MfD is undermining your credability as an Admin. Please reverse your close. Legacypac (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, Legacypac. I didn't edit the deletion discussion. I never edited the essay, nor its talk page, although I was once pinged to it, months ago. I do agree with some of the ideas expressed in the essay, and I disagree with others. I can't see that this makes me WP:INVOLVED.

I also don't see where I have been misrepresenting political outcomes. What statements of mine misrepresent anything, as you see it?

In any case I am not going to undo the close. But what I will do is post at WP:AN, describing this and asking for opinions on whether I was too involved to properly close this. Please consider this a notification that you are about to be mentioned there, although i will post a formal notification on your talk page after I open the thread on AN. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've pointed to the NPOL issue at your ANi. Legacypac (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good, Legacypac Bring out any issues you think relevant. By the way it is AN, not ANI, because that is the place to dispute closes, not that it matters much. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To dispute the close, go to WP:DRV. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It could have been DRV, which is the other place to dispute closes. But in this case the only real issue was whether WP:INVOLVED applied or not, and it seemed to me that that was much more the sort of issue to bring up an AN, than at DRV, which is mostly for when the substance of a close is disputed. But I would gladly post a pointer to the AN thread at DRV if you think that would be a good idea, SmokeyJoe. Do you? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not, there is no case that the close was incorrect. The INVOLVED question is a behavioural question, but I presume there is no question that no admin would have closed the discussion any other way. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can think of one who might have, SmokeyJoe. But he rarely closes MfDs. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see Fastily has reopened the MfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes SmokeyJoe. And since I am not to close it, I have now commented extensively. Since the repoen was a revert of my edit, I was auto-pinged by it. There were points perhaps worthy of being addressed still in the AN thread, but since this started over a SNOW close, perhaps I am not in a good position to contest a fast close of the thread, and I will not do so. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The later speedy keep by another must feel good. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still a bad close by DES SmokeyJoe. The topic deserves discussion Legacypac (talk) 02:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am gald to see that another editor agreed with my view SmokeyJoe, although the state of the discussion was rather different than it was when i closed it. Legacypac, if you think my conduct needs discussion, on this or any issiue or combination of issues, feel free to open a discussion on AN, ANI, or at ARBCOM. You said that my opening the AN discussion on my own close was an attempt to preempt a complaint for you. I had no such intent. You complained of my close at the start of this thread, and while i didn't and don't agree, I accept that the complaint was made in good faith. I therefore promptly brought it up for discussion at AN, so that other admins and experienced editors could give their views on whether I was INVOLVED. I did this in the interests of transparency and proper process. I can't see how it preempts you from raising any issue you fele you need to raise, or from gathering diffs for a wider discussion if you feel that one is warranted. While i disagree with your views on drafts and draftspace generally, and with a number of actions you have taken in connection with that issue, I recognize that you are a positively contributing editor, and do not feel any animosity towards you personally. I am ready to account for any of my actions as an admin at any time. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust Wall Hangings Debate

Hi Dave. I see that there is some debate among Wikipedia users over whether or not to remove the Holocaust Wall Hangings page. I read all the comments and come away with the understanding that I should not have written the article in Draft and that at least one individual thinks the topic doesn't meet the criteria for having its own page. Is my writing or editing being called into question, too? Hard to tell in the correspondence chain. Thanks for leading the way in explaining the validity of the article. Please advise what I should differently when developing my next article. George David NH (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George David NH can you please link to where this talk occurred? I just looked and could not find any such talk. It isn't on Talk:Holocaust Wall Hangings, and the article hasn't been nominated for deletion at WP:AfD, nor listed for proposed deletion. Those are the only places to formally sugest that an article be deleted. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:A2soup/Don't use draftspace George David NH (talk) 23:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC) I reread the page and the only reference to my work or the H W Hangings page came from you as you used it as an example. Makes sense. George David NH (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the page and your work on it was also praised by SmokeyJoe, as well, George David NH. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dave. Any idea why Anne Frank's Hiding Place photo was removed from Holocaust Wall Hangings (...it has been deleted from Commons by Jcb because of no OTRS permission for 30 days)? It's noted as removed today, 7/9 for no OTRS permissions for 30 days. Thanks. George David NH (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC) Just noticed the Weinshall Liberman's profile photo from Draft:Judith Weinshall Liberman was also take down today for the same reason. Input or advice for a right course of action to correct these issues? George David NH (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tata Nexon

Sorry, can we move the arricle Draft:Tata Nexon into Tata Nexon? I add the correct refenrences. Thanks and good work! --62.98.126.10 (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Broadridge

Hi there, just checking to see if you'd noticed you'd been pinged in my revised COI request on the Broadridge discussion page. I appreciated that you were receptive before, although it became clear to me then that I didn't have the goods. I think I do now, but it's been pretty quiet over there lately. Would love to have your input. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for adoption

Hi there, I would be extremely grateful if you would consider adopting me so that I may learn from an experienced editor like yourself the ins and outs of wikipedia. My passions are medicine and literature. I enjoy adding new content to articles and cleaning up references to articles. Tirab (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Louise Mitchell

DESiegel, please stop by this DYK nomination at your earliest opportunity; it is waiting on a reply from you to proceed. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My article on Deanna Kamiel

DESiegel - I believe I have made the changes you asked for. The article is resubmitted for a 2nd review. Katsheron (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has been 4 weeks now since I made the changes. Just sayin'. Katsheron (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Food Truck Festival

Hello DESiegel, I participated in my first deletion discussion for the Chicago Food Truck Festival. You also were one of the people who also voted to keep the article. When time permits please review how they deleted the article was proper. As they say a strong consensus was reached but I dont understand or see that none of the users in the relist discussion used policy. Thanks. Thelegaldude (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

Hello DESiegel, I am looking for an adoptee to adopt me and to teach me everything about Wikipedia as well as the HTML coding language and much more of that stuff. Thank you, Yanjipy (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping For Some Advice or Clarification

I wanted to handle this the correct way, by utilizing the Talk page of this topic and I'll explain why I am here instead.

You raised some great questions regarding Patricia Kennealy-Morrison's Wikipedia page it would seem that editors and/or Admins who oversee this page are very resistant to including anything that states that Kennealy-Morrison's claims are, well, claims. I am hoping you can give me some clarification or some advice.

What I see as a very reasonable, well-researched article suggestions are considered "personal opinion" by a Wikipedia editor (Admin?) while Kennealy-Morrison's claims are being treated as being verified fact.

Link to Kennealy-Morrison's Talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Patricia_Kennealy-Morrison

I thought of adding my concerns about Kennealy-Morrison's page to her Talk page but after seeing that my concerns have already been outlined very well and Kennealy-Morrison's version of events remain in place I thought I might be wasting my time.

"As editor-in-chief of Jazz & Pop she first interviewed Jim Morrison of the rock band The Doors in January 1969. After the interview, they began a correspondence, became friends and later lovers. She and Morrison exchanged vows in a Celtic handfasting ceremony in June 1970.[2][4][5] Before witnesses, the couple signed a document declaring themselves wed.[6][4][7] The relationship continued to be long-distance, which she says suited them both just fine. As temperamental artists with their own careers, living together for more than short periods of time may have been too much for either to handle. She preferred a nontraditional arrangement to "domesticity" and had no desire to "wash [Jim's] socks".[8] Morrison could be very difficult, at times loving and gentle, then suddenly brutal, or cold and distant.[9] By the time Morrison was on trial in Miami,[10] potentially facing a long sentence of hard labor, his at times erratic and even cruel behaviour led her to speculate that maybe he hadn't taken the wedding as seriously as he'd led her to believe.[4][11][12] But then Morrison would change his tune yet again and profess his love and desire for domesticity, claiming he was planning on returning to her, and to the Doors, in the fall.[13][14] Kennealy was skeptical by this point, as he was known to vacillate like this in his other relationships, as well.[9][12] Jim Morrison's sudden death at 27 would mean a lack of closure not only for Kennealy, but for the many people in his life.[5][15]"

Ordained minister, before witnesses, they exchanged vows, never filed the legal paperwork, but then Morrison would change his tune yet again and profess his love and desire for domesticity, claiming he was planning on returning to her - as outlined on Kennealy-Morrison's Talk page these statements have only been verified by Kennealy-Morrison.

The title of the book 'No One Here Get's Out Alive' is referenced on Jim Morrison's page as a means to to add validity to Kennealy-Morrison's assertions and yet the book depicts the relationship between Morrison and Kennealy-Morrison this way:

page 295

"In many ways their relationship was fairly typical for Jim. Except for Pamela, there was no one girl that he saw very often or for periods of more than a few days, and in the months since they'd met. Jim and Patricia had been in the same room probably no more than seven or eight time. Nor had there been many phone calls. A sheaf of oddly personal letters, gifts of jewelry and rare books and copies of his three privately printed books, but nothing that signaled a passionate courtship.

Nor was the manner in which Jim behaved towards Patricia different from his style with others."

It would be fair, and given the circumstances, more neutral if the paragraph started with, "In her 1992 memoir Strange Days Kennealy-Morrison claims...", or "Kennealy-Morrison says that before a minister and witnesses..." ?

A link to a legal document was provided where Jim Morrison signed and dated a benefits card and marked himself as single a few months after Kennealy-Morrison stated that they had wed has not swayed anyone to consider that the arguments on this page are not just personal opinion.

Am I wasting my time trying to get changes made on this page? If not, any advice on how to be effective in at least attempting to get changes made via the Talk page? As I said, this page is heavily protected and any changes or edits seem to be frowned upon.

Thanks very much for your time and I apologize if I brought this to the wrong place, I just wanted some insights if it turns out that I should proceed with my suggestions. Any insights you could give me would be greatly appreciated.Leyna010208 (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leyna010208 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr. Siegel,

I am working on editing a page, doing some updates and trying to get rid of the dead link in the references (since it cannot be repaired) but I must be doing something wrong. I have repaired the other refs but cannot fix first link or get rid of the second. I so respect your help and opinion here. thanks always for your expertise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Champlin Paulhus15 (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Mimi Mondal

On 21 August 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mimi Mondal, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Mimi Mondal is the first writer from India to be nominated for a Hugo Award? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mimi Mondal. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Mimi Mondal), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for ""Info Box- - Person"" or "Info-Box Academic" for Samuel Adler (composer)

Hello DESiegal - If you have some extra time, kindly examine the article on the noted conductor and composer Samuel Adler (composer). A request for an "Info Box - person" has been processed and included on the article but appears to be subject to continuous deletion (perhaps because Adler is still alive?) Kindly consider using the "Info Box academic" template {{Infobox academic}} to rectify this problem as suggested here Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Composers, or perhaps assigning an "Infobox -Person" from the WikiProject Musicians Project (or "Info box Musical Artist") since Adler was also an active conductor who founded the historic Seventh Army Symphony Orchestra and was awarded the U. S. Army's highest Medal of Honor for services to Music, published several academic books on Orchestra, and Choral conducting, was a member of the faculty at several leading music conservatories including the Eastman School of Music and the Juilliard School for over 60 years, and was recognized by his academic peers by receiving several Honorary Doctorate of Music degrees as well as membership in Sigma Alpha Iota and Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia. I would be grateful for any insights which you might wish to share on the articles talk page here Talk:Samuel Adler (composer) Many thanks for your thoughtful consideration and contributions to the discussion along with my best wishes for your continued success on Wikipedia in the fututre With warmest regards...104.207.219.150 (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)PS104.207.219.150 (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)PS[reply]

Question about Mentoring

Would you be willing fo mentor me? And if so, what would I be learning about? Thanks, A 10 fireplane (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boo!

Happy Halloween!

Hello DESiegel:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– A 10 fireplane (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

A 10 fireplane (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image use

Hi, DES. I've totally confused myself with the protocol for submitting images for use within an article. I have a book cover image I would like to use, and which was given to me by the author, but I'm unclear as to what kind of disclaimer release terminology I need to use. Can you help me? ARD (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC) Angela[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, DESiegel. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

Nomination for deletion of Template:Speedy-Warn

Template:Speedy-Warn has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ^{[Username Needed]} 11:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Special Barnstar
		For your recent offer on WSE to help a newbie WP editor. Narky Blert (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please participate to the talk pages consultation

Hello

Our team at the Wikimedia Foundation is working on a project to improve the ease-of-use and productivity of wiki talk pages. As a Teahouse host, I can imagine you’ve run into challenges explaining talk pages to first-time participants.

We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis – to ask questions, to resolve differences, to organize projects and to make decisions. Communication is essential for the depth and quality of our content, and the health of our communities. We're currently leading a global consultation on how to improve talk pages, and we're looking for people that can report on their experiences using (or helping other people to use) wiki talk pages. We'd like to invite you to participate in the consultation, and invite new users to join too.

We thank you in advance for your participation and your help.

Trizek (WMF), 08:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please participate to the talk pages consultation - link update

The previous message about the talk pages consultation has a broken link.

The correct link has been misinterpreted by the MassMessage tool. Please use the following link: Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019.

Sorry for the inconvenience, Trizek (WMF), 08:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 special circular

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 02:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

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

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

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

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

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next several days.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions have been removed.

Subject to certain time limits and other restrictions, your administrative permissions may be returned upon request at WP:BN.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope all is well with you, David. I notice that you often take a complete break of almost exactly 12 months and this is the 3rd time you've been desysoped for inactivity. You should be due to return sometime soon now, and I look forward to seeing you around again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:HangonUse

Template:HangonUse has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Trialpears (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Hey, DES! I already thanked you over at BN, but I wanted to say that my intent had been only to understand what looked like such an unusual pattern, not to raise a definite objection, as your contributions have clearly been valuable when you do have one of your periods of activity. My objection is to editors who aren't really interested in regularly contributing much but just in keeping the flag, so they come back and do just enough, then wander off again until it's time to go make an edit and keep that flag. Your answer was great, and I appreciate your all-or-nothing approach, and also your intent to make sure you're caught up with any changes. It also explained the fact you hadn't dealt with the talk notifications in August and September. I also appreciate the fact you took the question as not being inappropriate. Best to you, valereee (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, You are welcome. I will say that it might have been better to ask a returning (ex-)admin not "why were you gone?" -- there might have been any of a number of reasons that were no one else's business -- but "How active do you plan to be going forward?" which is highly relevant to the operations of Wikipedia. I agree that "hat-collecting" is not a good idea for adminship. But I didn't want to get into that onj the noticeboard. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, David. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Kudpung. Its good to be back. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would have been better! Note to self. :) --valereee (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back.

Hello. I've just seen that you've posted at the Teahouse. Although we don't know one another, I was quite concerned by your sudden disappearance last year, and had hoped nothing untoward had befallen you. So I'm really delighted to see you back again, and trust you are well. In due course I hope you'll want to re-add your name to the list of Teahouse hosts as, a few months back, I undertook quite an update there, removing quite a number of inactive names, including yours, I'm afraid. With very best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message, Nick Moyes. It was just pressure of off-line life, nothing horrid, as my recent comments at [[WP:BN}} indicate. I will re-add to the host list. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

}

Welcome Back!

Welcome Back! We missed you! --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 21:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Thegooduser. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you are back. I was wondering where were you since no edits from you for a few month. Believe all is good and well !!! CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Brendan Gahan entry

Hello. I'm contacting you because I think you're the deleting admin for a recent entry I created, "Brendan Gahan". The page was speedily deleted, but I'm not sure why. Would you be able to help me understand what the problem was or problems were? If you could shed any light on the matter that would be very helpful. (If you were not the one who deleted the page and I'm contacting you in error would you please steer me to the right admin?) Thank you for your help. Scruitineer (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scruitineer, Yes I deleted Brendan Gahan recently. I did so because it had previously (on 11:56, 9 January 2018 ) been deleted after a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendan Gahan. This made it subject to deletion criterion WP:CSD#G4G4. The expressed concern at the 2018 discussion was:

Promotional, reads like an advertisement with puffery (e.g. "Has been called the Don Draper of social video"). No indications of real notability. Notability is not inherited. The listed "Awards" and inclusions in various lists are of no real indications of notability.

While the shorter version I deleted was somewhat less promotional than the version deleted in 2018, it did little if any more to establish Notability. Note please that on Wikipedia "notability" is a technical term meaning "has been written about in some detail in multiple Independent published reliable sources". Please see Our guideline on notability of biographies.

If you want to proceed with creating an article about Gahan I strongly urge that you create a version in Draft space, that is at Draft:Brendan Gahan, try to ensure that it has sufficient source references, and then submit it for review under the articles for creation process. An experienced editor will review it and either approve it and move it back to the main article space, or provide feedback on any remaining issues. You might also want to ask for advice at the Teahouse.

If you wish, I am willing to restore the deleted article, move it to draft space, and mark it as an AfC draft. Let me know by replying to this thread if you want me to do this. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to explain. Yes, if you're willing to restore the page and mark it as an AfC draft that would be very helpful. Looking forward to learning more about this process. I appreciate your help. Scruitineer (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scruitineer, I have restored the page and moved it to draft at Scruitineer. I urge you to find additional sources that discuss the subject in some detail to clearly establish the notability of the subject, if possible. Note that sources must be Independent to help establish notability. A subject's own website or social media, or those of a subject's employers, business affiliates, or family are not independent. Nor are interviews with the subject, excepot that if there is an introductory statement by a reporter that part alone may be helpful for notability if it is in some detail. Also sources must be reliable. Blogs and fan sites are not normally reliable.

Note that AfC drafts may not lie untouched forever -- if a draft goes unedited for 6 months it may be deleted for that reason alone. And our other policies such as the Biographies of living persons policy, and the policy agaisn copyright infringement continue to apply nto drafts. I hope this is helpful -- feel free to ask further questions at any time, here or at the Teahouse. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

fyi

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Steven A. Murphy -- I don't mind doing it by discussion instead of speedy. (we really should have an automatic template for notification in cases like this) DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes use {{Speedy-Warn}} to notify taggers when i decline a speedy tag, but it is not automatic, and I don't always do so. Thanks for the notification. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might use User:Ale_jrb/Scripts/csdhelper.js .... ∯WBG^converse 11:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, DESiegel. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Draft:Lucas Avish Dworkin

I tagged it as db-g3 because it is blatant misinformation; "He's won multiple national championships and even a world-wide open". On the off chance there was some legitimacy to such a statement, I searched and found nothing. An elementary school kid is not very likely to have won a national championship or world open, and I would be a bit surprised if such an event existed for kids that age. I'm not trying to get you to change it back to g3; I don't care about that. I'm just explaining why I tagged it g3. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft that makes sense, since G3 includes hoaxes. Perhaps i shouldn't have changed it. Anyway, it will soon be gone under one CSD or another. Thanks for tagging. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

resysops

Hey, DES! I'd actually intentionally left off the very recent resysops because it didn't seem useful or reasonable -- adding that as #19 has left two off the list that would have gone between the end of my original list and that one. (Plus because it's over my signature, now it looks like I added #19 and intentionally left the other two off.) --valereee (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee I thought in that case (which is of course my own) the edit pattern after the first desysop was relevant enough to be worth listing. But feel free to revert if you like or remove the item. I think it might be worth creating a second list, perhaps over my sig, with some you didn't include. There are some not noted as being "for inactivity" in the resysops page, but so listed on the appropriate log entries. A more comprehensive list might be of value to those considering the issue. If I do that, i could move #19 to it. What do you think? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DES, I think a supplemental list that includes #19 would be great! I had suspected there might be some that simply hadn't been noted as such, and more information is always helpful. --valereee (talk) 11:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Ongoing good deeds sir; Procode200 (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsky

With regard to Wikipedia:Teahouse#Need Feedback on my submission Draft:Chukwunonso Ezekwueche: This is related to User:Nonsky, the (blocked for promo/socking) subject of the article, who has previously solicited paid editing. I don't know if Vinvibes is aware of the history. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information, AlanM1, but I don't really see that it matters at all. Even assumi9ng that Chukwunonso Ezekwueche is known to be User:Nonsky (which he may be, but it is not known to me) if he is in fact notable, there can and should be an article about him, and if he isn't, there shouldn't be. Whether he is blocked on Wikipedia and why makes no difference, unless he is alleged to be notable for his Wikipedia editing. If an article complies with [[WP:NPOV\\, demonstrates notability, is properly supported by sources, and in general complies with Wikipedia policy, that it has previously been edited with promotional intent makes no difference at all. Previous promotion is not a reason to delete, nor in my view should it be. I might add that making the connection between username and real name here, if it has not previously been made public, might be considered outing so please be careful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The connection was, indeed, made by the subject himself. My concern was about potential and potentially undisclosed paid editing. Just making you aware of the history in case you weren't. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, AlanM1 In fact I wasn't aware of it. All I can say is that if the current draft is the best a possibly paid editor can do, it was a waste of money. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:ShopeenBest

And here we are again :) The reason I tagged it for db-promo is the language is promotional "dedicated to sell the best products", includes all their social media platforms...and the thing that did it ultimately for me is the edit summary on creation; "Biography of MY company/ecommerce store" (emphasis mine). This person is trying to promote their business. Admin Athaenara has already blocked them for being a promotional/advertising account. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft Frankly I think such a block is out of line, but i won't contest it. Many new editors do not understand that we limit to a single link to a subject';s web presence, particularly when none of these is clearly the "main link". If the draft is developed, that will have to be dealt with. Given that "Best" is part of the firm's name, I don't find that line, in a draft where more leeway should be given, excessively promotional. The edit summery suggests COI, but does not make the text any more promotional. Feel free to bring this to MfD if you think proper, but I don't think it would be worth while. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there's one thing I've learned over the years on this project, it's that in situations like this there is no 'right' answer. You think I'm wrong, I think you're wrong, but wrong isn't some catastrophic outcome where people get in a huff and walk out. So, I'm *shrug* at this point. Someone was willing to spend the time to start the MfD. And on Wikipedia goes. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with all that, Hammersoft. The wiki will not fall or even be measurably harmed by this, whichever way it turns out. I have commented at the MfD, we'll see what consensus forms. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Taivo

I nominated my userpage for deletion and you blanked it. This was not what I requested. I can blank my userpage myself. I requested deletion, so that user:Taivo would be a red link. I hope, that this request is not against rules. Taivo (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, Taivo There was confusion with TaivoLinguist who was once User:Tavio here, many years ago. I blanked the page to remove the redirect to User:TaivoLinguist, and apparently did not see your delete request. I have now deleted the page. You are free to recreate it, or leave it as a redlink. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Miranda

Thank you for deleting Elizabeth Miranda as a blatant hoax. Unfortunately the user has recreated it, and is now removing the speedy tag. They have a long history of rather unpleasant vandalism. Could you delete that one again? I've also reported them on WP:AIV as very clearly WP:NOTHERE. Many thanks, The Mirror Cracked (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Mirror Cracked

Done DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for NCLAT

Thank you for your assistance creating the page of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. I also seek to understand more from you about how to make edits of Wikipedia pages about orders passed by NCLAT. While I have made a few successfully, an editor Winged Blades of Godric has reverted one of which is factual and a latest information. The revert on Raheja Developers was done without any discussion on the same, called it whitewashing in the edit summary. As I checked his talk page I have realized that the person replies people using languages like "I don't give a flying fuck" and I decided not to converse to avoid such a discussion. I went into a BRD cycle, hoping that an admin would interfere but I realized that admin RexxS has undone my change. While I understand that it is considered as edit warring, why is the updated information not considered? Prof Pandaa (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prof Pandaa Please do not edit war ,under any circumstances. The only way forward here is to engage with Winged Blades of Godric and RexxS both of whom are quite experienced editors and are very unlikely to be committing vandalism -- please do not throw that word around lightly. Moreover, it seems that this edit was at least somewhat misleading. It reads as if the insolvency case had been dismissed, but as i read the news stories you cited, enforcement proceedings were merely suspended to allow a possible settlement, and the tribunal was very critical of Raheja Developers, which was not reflected in your edit. I hope and trust that further discussion on Talk:Raheja Developers can lead to an acceptable outcome. Consider the many paid editors who have been active on that articel, and you can see why editors are more than a bit suspicious. I may post to that talk page myself later if I can. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DESiegel, apologies for butting in, but Prof Pandaa is surely aware that the place to discuss content is on the talk page of the article (or a relevant noticeboard if more opinions are needed). I am not impressed by the behaviour of any editor who simply attempts to force their preferred version into any article and does that repeatedly without ever engaging on the talk page. I an uninvolved with the article, and have no view whatsoever on the content of Prof Pandaa's edit: I only observe that it was made, and re-made twice in response to challenges. Thank you for taking the time to explain the issue better than I have been able to. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2019 (UTCg

No need to apologize, RexxS, If I hadn't wanted your input I wouldn't have pinged you. I was involved with the creation of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal reacting to a speedy deletion tag. But that does not make me an expert on every order of the Tribunal. Of course, I want to help avoid any edit wars that I can. I do not disagree with your comments above. It does seem to me that the news stories that Prof Pandaa tried to add here are relevant, although the attempted edit does not quite correctly describe their content. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking out the time to explain things DESiegel and RexxS. I think I have gained a fair idea of how edits should happen on the page, and the kind of response it has due to paid editing. I have already discussed the matter on the talk page a few hours ago and would wait for a healthy discussion to begin on it. Also, let me know if I can be making an edit now with content which describes the content more accurately. Will it still be considered as an attempt to edit war?Prof Pandaa (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock notif?

Hi. I noticed unblock of Rcorsini54, but that there is no notification on his talk page. Should there be an {{Unblocked}} added? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, AlanM1. Now that the ANI discussion has clsoed, and no one has suggested re-blocking, I will place the notification. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, as was the extended note about the issues. I saw the block and was surprised, too (with all due respect to the blocker, of course). Good job on potential retention of a slightly-misguided wikinewbie who might have some useful subject area knowledge to share.

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Let It Be Art!

Dear DESiegel, I am writing to you in regards to the Let It Be Art! draft. I appreciate your looking at it but to be honest, it was not based on anyone else's article or taken from anyone's work or quoted from anyone's article. I have re-edited the proposed article. It was completely written without any other's information but just with the facts pertaining to the play. I am hoping it will be accepted. Please be so kind - if I may ask your help to make it right and better, if you still feel it needs work. I believe the information provided about this play and the person it is about would be most beneficial to students and others in the theater in America and world-wide. Thank you. FitwithJanFitwithjan (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re citation requests and deletions

Hello,

I didn't participate in the discussion on ANI due to time constraints. Having read it after its closing, I would just like to address your comment on the essence of the argument and clarify what I had said. I did not claim that 'a request that information is properly cited is ... out of line' per se, or that ' 'readers are expected to use Google or other searches to determine if an article's content is correct', or that 'using a ^{[citation needed]} tag rather than simply reverting ... is ... a rule'. In general, my points were not about rules, but about what constitutes decent behaviour and common sense.

First, when one chooses to request a citation or outright delete a claim with no citation footnote attached, I think it's self-evident that it should be because one sincerely believes that one has a reason to consider the claim dubious, controversial or uncertain, instead of just doing it randomly, mindlessly, as a way of wearing out the other editor or in the hope that no editor will happen to notice and/or bother to turn up with a citation. This is not and cannot be 'a rule' that could be 'enforced', since nobody can prove and formally penalise anybody else's beliefs and intentions; it's just a matter of decent behaviour.

Second, if one reverts, and the other editor does not monitor the page (something which IPs typically don't), and no notification of the revert is sent, this is almost guaranteed to mean that the sources will not be provided and the information, however true, useful and widely accepted it might be, will remain deleted. The effect of such an approach is to eliminate potentially good work and valuable information, so, again, not 'a rule', but decent and constructive behaviour requires that one should avoid proceeding in this manner.

Furthermore, if an editor (not a reader) doubts the information and it can be checked very easily by anybody (Indonesia is a country? Really? It's in Asia? Really? Its capital is Jacarta? Really?), it is, again, decent behaviour, albeit not a rule, for the editor to check it himself and, if necessary, source it, instead of bothering others by putting tags or outright moving to delete the information.

The same applies if one knows too little about the issue to be able to have any meaningful doubts about it - say, if you don't know what an invertebrate is and you don't know what a cephalopod is, choosing to demand citations for the claim that cephalopods are invertebrates or directly deleting it is not a good thing to do, even if it doesn't break any rules. At least one might want to check first what invertebrates and cephalopods are.

This, IMO, is how one has to proceed if one actually wants good information to be in the encyclopedia, which should be the goal of all editors, not just the editor who adds the specific piece of information.

Finally - yes, ideally, every single piece of information on Wikipedia should be sourced. Based on this, every demand for a citation would be a good thing. In practice, however, it is simply not the case that every sentence is followed by a reference - and even when it is, the attribution may still not apply to every element of the sentence, so one may continue adding ^{[citation needed]} tags ad infinitum. In the meantime, people do choose what to delete and what to demand citations for.

Regards, --87.126.23.210 (talk) 00:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rcorsini54...

...has reappeared as User:Rcorsini65. So far, no article edits. David notMD (talk) 02:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPR

do you think I don't still yet qualify for new page reviewer rights? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 03:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I don't usually make those decisions, Thegooduser but I note that in this edit you deleted the signatutre from another user's comment, I assume by mistake. I also think that if the only way you know to submit to AfC is by moving a draft to a sandbox, you have some learning to do yet. But I recently learned that CASSIOPEIA does some training for NPP/NPR, and that user might be able to give you better idea if you are ready for that. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of signature was a accident/system glitch.--Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 00:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Change of Username

Hi i received your message of change of username. I have already requested it and is pending approval. Thus request you to give some time to get it accepted and renamed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLister (talk • contribs) 05:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Sereda (musician) wiki page, COI

hi DESiegel and thanks for your driection re: COI. I am indeed the subject of the wiki page, I simply wnated to update the page. I am new to the format and guidelines, and it's not my intention to scam or spam or promote, simply list facts and update. I am trying to figure out how to disclose the COI and when I do I will gladly add that to the page, along with sources for new edits. This new edit was motivated by a friend pointing out that 1) the page was out of date nad more importantly 2) that when they did a google search of my name, the sidebar result was my name and occupation with another David Sereda's photos, links and website attached, though my wikipage and song links were there. I have contacted Google and am working through their policies. I don't wish to go against Wikipedia's, so I thank you for you patience and direction. I will review and try to make amends. Thanks again, david Davidsereda786 (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Davidsereda786. Do read WP:DISCLOSE to learn how to disclose. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Davidsereda786, I have placed {{Connected contributor}} on Talk:David Sereda on your behalf. Please send email with proof of your identity to [email protected] giving your user name and identifying the article David Sereda specifically. Explain thyat you are in fact the same person who mis the topic of that article, and you do not wish to be blocked for impersonation. In thew meantime, I advise you to create User:Davidsereda786 and place

{{UserboxCOI|1=David Sereda}}

on your user page to further identify your connection with that article. If there is another person by the name of David Sereda, and if that person is notable, a separate article might be created about that person, and a disambiguation page created to indicate the distinction. In any case, text can be placed on Talk:David Sereda indicating the difference between teh two persons. There is already some such text there, from more than 8 years ago. I hope this helps. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Beat (instrumental)

Hi DESiegel, re [7]] can you point me to the policy that says how long an article has to exist before CSD#A3 applies? Thanks, The Mirror Cracked (talk) 06:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Mirror Cracked WP:CSD#A3 says Don't tag under this criterion in the first few minutes after a new article is created (I quoted this in my edit summary, IIRC.) Then there is a footnote (no. 6) which says: Consensus has developed that in most cases articles should not be tagged for deletion under this criterion moments after creation as the creator may be actively working on the content; though there is no set time requirement, a ten-minute delay before tagging under this criterion is suggested as good practice. Please do not mark the page as patrolled before that delay passes, to ensure the article is reviewed at a later time. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion is a policy page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciate it. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 06:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Inkthis london.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Inkthis london.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Bret

Thank you so much for revising my Wikipedia page and returning it to form by pitting back the reviews to some of my books, good and bad. David Bret. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.244.22 (talk) 09:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Lillard

Look, I get where you are coming from and cited the date of birth in this case but there are two player profiles already linked in the infobox which confirm this information (which is considered basic player info much like position, height and weight). It is very typical that date of birth is public for professional athletes - the info appears everywhere from their team’s site to every trading card they appear on. Rikster2 (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rikster2 I can see where professional athletes are something of a special case, and I won't edit further now that a source is provided. I don't usually edit articles about professional athletes -- I came to this one from an issue at WP:UAA quite unrelated to his birth date. I still think, as I said on Talk:Damian Lillard, that such dates are in most cases unencyclopedic trivia, but it may be that in cases like this that is less true. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU YOUR ANSWER AT THE TEAHOUSE

I am relieved of the matter. Dreambar (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Nichelle Rodriguez

link: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Nichelle Rodriguez

Hi! I am totally accepting the opportunity to work on this draft but what further action should I take to assist with its final home? As I understand, drafts are decided by admin at some point?

My class is reviewing two other subjects and they have no issues or discussions to learn from. This one seems to keep giving us several research opportunities.

And thank you for the instruction on my contribution. AKinderWorld (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, AKinderWorld. The key things that will be needed for Draft:Nichelle Rodriguez to go forward are:

Find additional sources -- independant, published, high-quality, reliable, in-depth sources. Not interviews, not press releases, not blogs, not passing mentions or trivial references, but sources that spend several paragraphs at least discussing Rodriguez and her activities. News and magazine stories are good, as would be any books published by a reliable publisher.
Use those sources to add neutral, factual, content, that helps indicate how and why Rodriguez is significant, and what she has done. If the sources include criticism or negative comment, that should be included too. No whitwashing. Any opinions should be clearly attributed to a cited source (In the text it should say something like "John Jones has that that Rodriguez ..." with a footnote to show where Jones said that.) Any direct quotes should be clearly marked as such, with attribution, quote marks or <blockquote>...</blockquote> tags, and a citaiton to the source of the quote.

If you seriously intend to work on this, you could post to teh MfD to say so. But keep it brief and matter of fact there.

Oh and please remember to hsue wiki-links to point to artivcles, not URLs as much a sposisble., I have changed those above in this section.

I hope this advice is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thanks for being extra nice to others at the Teahouse. Interstellarity (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not so dreamy

Time to show our friend the door, or at least the bench for a while? PA at Special:Diff/925048359 had to have its summary removed but it still appears here, and now Special:Diff/925200382. Pretty mild stuff, but still, I think the outlook is bleak without a course correction. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to see all that, AlanM1 but thank you for letting me know. Those edits, while far from the worst I have seen (I was compared unfavorably with those concentration camp inmates who assisted the guards by one notable editor because I added unfavorable sourced content to the article about him) were well out of the acceptable range. A shame. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for rollback rights

The reason why I need rollback rights are because I need to use Huggle. Cheers! Central Time 301 18:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CentralTime301 The Huggle page says: Huggle is not intended for new Wikipedia users. All Wikipedians intending to use Huggle must be familiar with how to deal with vandalism before they start. If you wish to get experience in handling vandalism, the counter-vandalism academy is a good place to start. You have a bit under 3,000 edits, but have been active for only four months. The relatively recent edit warring and other problems cited in your previous rejections for rollback rights are still a concern in my view. But I will post asking other admins to review my action. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

The lack of engagement with my comments is sadly very predictable: your brief acknowledgement that perhaps "I want to promote myself" and "you should not do that on Wikipedia" are perhaps not equally reasonable positions lasted about an hour before yet another post calling removing self-promotion "edit warring" like it's a content dispute made in its place. There was, predictably, no response to my suggestion that, if you've got strong opinions about how self-promotion should be dealt with, you might want to take over from regular Wikipedians in dealing with instances that come to your attention so we don't have to. Self-promotional editing absolutely relies on these kind of administrative practices to thrive. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Drover's Wife I never said, nor do I believe, that attempting to insert COI content is morally equivalent to trying to keep it out, nor did I say that on WP:AN. But I do say that repeated reverting, even in an attempt to stem COI editing, is still edit-warring, and is not accptable. You said that my actions were disruptive and unhelpful -- of course I am going to ask others to review them, in case you are correct and I was acting poorly. That is one thing AN is for. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RE: COI advice on Teahouse

Thanks for the sound advice on conflict of interest, in response to my Teahouse post. I've been an editor for years, but somehow have never found myself having to think about COI issues until now! Neiltonks (talk) 09:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're a 'featured host'

As you are currently close to being one of the most active editors at WP:TH, your name and an image has now replaced that of an inactive host. I have simply used the default image of a cup of green tea which other TH hosts also display. It would be great if you would now do two things:

Check or change the 'featured host' image allocated to you. Edit it at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured/3, or undo my changes if you don't wish to be 'featured'.
Create a 'host profile' for yourself, and choose a relevant picture - click the 'Experienced editor?' button in the TH Header to formally sign up to create a separate entry on the full list of all 89 current hosts which new editors can view.

Many thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interstellarity I have a Teahouse host profile with a picture, I have had one for years. It uses the same picture tha is on my user page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interstellarity I have now edited Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured/3. Thanks. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Canary Connect Inc. (November 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Seraphimblade was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The comment the reviewer left was:

More than half the article is a listing of non-notable awards. A highly critical article is used as a source ([8]), but not one bit of the criticism found its way into the article. Borderline promotion, needs to be written neutrally and include reliably-sourced criticism.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Canary Connect Inc. and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Canary Connect Inc., click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DESiegel! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Seraphimblade I think you have the wrong user here... Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Thegooduser I have already been in communication with Seraphimblade about the matter. There is nothing you need to do about this. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion, thanks. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For being the most thorough Teahouse host I have seen these many months (that's saying something). Thank you for returning. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 03:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Extrachromosomal DNA vs Extrachromosomal Circular DNA

Hello and thank you for the reply. I do debate which page to redirect to, my original thinking was that the 'extrachromosomal dna' page was just more comprehensive and so perhaps a better option. The term ecDNA (and the biological entity) is a subset of both of these pages, so eventually it would be nice to have a separate page, but I feel that why I'm learning, I would work with the redirect.

I am still a little confused on how the redirect works since it seems that i need to enter the REDIRECT code on a page that does not yet exist, or i am perhaps not understanding yet and need to read more.

Thank you again, j JC203760 (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JC203760. Which page to target is a judgement call, but there is presently more of a definition of "ecDNA " and more about ecDNA at the Extrachromosomal Circular DNA it seemed to me. But either would do, i think. For the matter of that, those two pages should perhaps be merged.

Yes, you would edit ecDNA (which does not yet exist and enter #REDIRECT [[Target]] where "Target" is the name of the rticle you want to redirect to. If you want the redirect to go to a specific section, you enter #REDIRECT [[Target#Section]] where "Section" is the section name. You can also add a comment to the targeted section as described in WP:REDIRECT to warn anyone changing the section name to fix the redirect. Or an anchor can be added. When you save (publish) the change to the previously non-existent page, the redirect will have been created. It is as simple as that. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Judy Sullivan

On 21 November 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Judy Sullivan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the Apollo 11 program, biomedical engineer Judy Sullivan was instantly identifiable if she made an error as she was the only female voice on NASA's headset link? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Judy Sullivan. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Judy Sullivan), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Chukwunonso Ezekwueche

Hi, with reference to my draft - Draft:Chukwunonso Ezekwueche - I searched around a bit today and found some references which appear to be relatively recent, and none of them are interviews. 4 of these came across as independent, while one, Glitz, am not so sure about. Can you please take some time out to check if they can be used? Thanks in advance, Vinvibes (talk) 08:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vinvibes Draft:Chukwunonso Ezekwueche looks significantly improved. Several of the cited sources seem to have some depth of coverage, and none are interviews. That is good. But I don't know this field well enough to judge if they are reliable or not. So I will not to a formal review or an acceptance. On the doctoral degree, you might cite to a university pahge listing graduates, if there is such a thing -- or even to the subject's own web site. This is the kind of non-controversial detail for which a self-published source may be used. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 08:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DESiegelif the subject has his own website, at least I have not come across it till date. University page I could look for, since such pages are usually published in PDF format. Its okay for you not to grant acceptance, the fact that you feel that it has improved is reassuring in itself. To be honest I logged in to cast my vote, and since I was already here, decided to do something about this draft. So should I re-submit, or wait for another week or so in case something new is published? Many thanks, Vinvibes (talk) 08:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vinvibes I would advise you to resubmit, the wait may well be a while anyway. You are free to keep working on the draft while it waits for review. And the University page is not essential, just a perhaps clearer source for that fact. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 09:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, hmmmm....its true that there is no such surety whether I would find anything new in the near future. So maybe yes, I will re-submit, but not tonight - will sleep over it and re-submit tomorrow morning. Thanks & regards, Vinvibes (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, DESiegel. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Nice to meet you

Dear Sir,

my editing in wikipedia is a mess and may be characterized as a running over me and my publishing interests, for example calling them vandalism but then vandalise the - often thoroughly reasoned - texts away that I put solely in the "Diskussion" = "Talk"-sections.

As good as the wikipedia-technology is, as bad seem to be myriads of users.

Furthermore I guess that the whole lots of explanatory texts are incomprehensible.

If I - can - stay here, I don't know.

Best Wishes

Lutz Fehling 89.15.238.121 (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if our various explanations and help pages are hard to understand. Many people have put a lot of effort into making them clear, but perhaps we failed in your case.

Please understand that the DE (German-lanaguge) Wikipedia is a compeltely separate project. Complaining here about things that happened there is much like complaining to Coke about the taste of Pepsi -- it is of no use to yourself or anyone else.

You are welcome to edit on the EN (English-language) Wikipedia. You may want to create or use an account -- that makes it significantly easier to communicate with you, gives you certain privileges, and helps protect your privacy. But you are in no way required to do that. If there is any problem or issue on the EN Wikipedia that I can help with, I will do my best. As I do not speak or read German, I can be of no help on the DE Wikipedia. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Union Station Intermodal Transit Center

I had tagged the "Union Station Intermodal Transit Center" redirect for speedy deletion because it was accidentally created with quotes and I moved it to the proper title without quotes. Is there another speedy deletion tag that should be used instead? I just need this simply deleted since it was created by mistake. Dough4872 01:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dough487 I misread the history, and thought the pagee had been moved directly to Pottsville station which is a long-standing article. I have deleted the versioin with quotees as G6 houskeeping, althouhg R3 would ahve been OK in this case also. Sorry for my error. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for deleting the redirect. Dough4872 01:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unresponsive Teahouse host

Hello, DESiegel, I have asked you a question at the Teahouse and you did not reply me for a long time and the question is archived. Reply me here. Link: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Archive 1035#Template:Unconstructive vandalism refraintag -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (🚨) 05:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No one is obliged to answer your questions, Bank Robbery, particularly not on a schedule. But in norder to be helpful, have a look at User:DESiegel/StatusSwitch as an example of how touse switch.

Did you read the help page about the parser functions?

As to XTools, iuse them myself, but I am not sure if it includes deleted pages in the page creation count. Probably, but i'm not sure. Ask the maintainers if you like, but only rough counts really matter anyway. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 08:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DESiegel: I read the page, but it doesn’t seem helpful because I don’t really understand. Does the code #switch really do anything? And who are the maintainers for XTools anyway? Are they at MediaWiki? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (🚨) 08:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And also, the switch is actually a template. It seems that the switch has a lot of parameters to fill in. How does it work? How do you make it only one parameter (status trigger) to fill in? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (🚨) 09:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Bank Robbery, the #switch funtion does do quite a lot. It is not actually a template, but uses a similar syntax.

If you can't, understand the documentation pge for #switch, perhaps you shouldn't try to create complex templates. But here goes an attempted explanation:

The switch function is an implemation of the classic "Case" or "switch" statement from Structured programming. The basic syntax is:

  {{#switch <TestValue>
  |<CaseValue1>  = <result1>
  |<Casevalue2a>
  |<cCseValue2b> = <result2>
  |<CaseValue3>  = <result3>
  }}

<TestValue> is the value being checked, often a parameter or something computed from a parameter of an enclosing template.
The various <CaseValueNN> values are compared in turn agaist <TestValue>. The first match is taken
The first <resultNN> following the match is the result of the switch function. It may itself be an entire template or sequence of text and template calls.
Note that the angle brackets here are used only to mark items that will be replacved by values (string or numeric). No actual angle bracket are uesd in the code. Study the example I linked to above, and see if you can follow it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 09:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. Now I understand much better. So the symbol | means if. (|abc = def is equal to if abc is true, def result will display) Am I right? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (🚨) 08:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Bank Robbery, that is correct. If the value beign tested matches "abc", then the result is "def", which will eithr be displayed, or possibly passed back to an enclosing template. Note that the value being tested is often a parameter value. The values to compare against are often hard-coded, but could be parameter based computations, or "magic words" or the results of other template calls. You might look at Template:Steps to Article (which I created). It uses a switch to test the named parameter "type", and supplies fifferent wording ,including different links, depending on the value of type. This a relativly simple and common use of the switch parser function. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I finished the template and tagged the older redirects G6 for CSD. Is the template now okay? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (🚨) 01:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{StatusUserbox}} seems to be doing what you apparently have in mind, Bank Robbery, and I see no obvious errors in it. Thanks for tagging the redirect. Is there anything esle I can help you with? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing more for how to help me and thank you for your help. So now I will remove the draft tag. -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (🚨) 01:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DESiegel and sorry to interrupt you again. I want to ask for your help: is there any kind of ParserFunction to indentify if the viewer is in mobile view or desktop view? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (🚨) 12:10, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI mention

Hi DESiegel. Just to let you know, you are briefly mentioned in an ANI thread I have just posted here; its not about you but I thought I'd let you know. WJ94 (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification, WJ94. I believe such notifications are required for even passing mentions in new ANI discussions. Oh in future, please place new topics such as this notification in their own section. Thanks. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought I had created a new section - my mistake! Yeah, I thought that was the case so I wanted to make sure you were notified. Many thanks for your help with this. WJ94 (talk) 09:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

@DESiegel: sorry for my untimely response, but here are the answers to your questions

what are your general goals on Wikipedia? To make it a friendly environment for users, and to make Wikipedia a credible source, create articles,and most importantly STOP VANDALISM!

What kinds of issues do you think you want or need help with? I have trouble citing sources, and mostly article writing, you can look @ my sandbox, and look at the article I have submitted in partnership with Blacephalon.

How much effort do you expect to put into editing, and how much contact/oversight do you want from an adopter? Normally, I expect myself to put a lot of effort into editing, and I only expect a little to a moderate amount of help from an adopter.

Thank you for your time! --Gumshoe97 (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's see how that fits me.

I certeinly work at makign Wikipedia a friendly place, as witness my regualr work at thTeahouse. I also try hard to build and improve articles and make wikipedia a credible and useful resource, althoguh never s reliable source.
Vandal fighting has never been my prime focus on Wikipedia, but I have done a fair amount of it, and continue to do some, mostly as an accessory to other tasks.
My activity level varies a good deal, but of late I've been consistantly doing over 1,000 edits/month.
I took a quick look at your sandbox, and I see several issues:
- The lack of a lead section;
- Inconsistand, incomplete, and incorrect citations;
- confusion between in-universe (fictional) and out-of-univerase (real-world) writing. The reader is not always clear which is which, the draft should make it clearer mi9n several circumstances wehen it is dealing with in-universe statemnets
- Non-standard sections "Publicatiosn" (which should be "Further nreading" probably) and "Special thanks" (which should be removed without trace).

I can definately help with all that.

Very well, do we have a deal? Sha I list you as "adopted" (a someehat silly term, but it has become common)? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gumshoe97: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DESiegel: Yes we have a deal, so you can list me as adopted. Thank you so much! --Gumshoe97 (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help from a new editor

Thank you for all your help a few weeks ago. Sorry I didn't reply earlier, but it's been one of those years. Gwen the Cat (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

From [9], I thought I'd follow up and can't there because it's closed. I was referring to the nomination of the AfD, not the DRV nomination. Sorry I was unclear. Hobit (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi - thanks for your recent help. I seem to be learning to 'edit source' which is exciting for me. Pakoire (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright wikipedia groups.

Hey there! Thanks for the helpful information at the Teahouse. I also wanted to ask if there are specific Wiki groups dedicated to copyright issues? The ones I have come across have been parts of articles sent to me by SuggestBot, but I'm interested in taking a more hands on approach if I can. LampGenie01 (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LampGenie01. There is not a formal group of copyright experts as far as I know, but there are people who take on issues, sometimes quite complex ones, listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Any editor can undertake this, of course, but there is a group of "regulars" who do most of the work there. I do a good many G12 speedy deletions, and handle a number of RevDel requests (more than some admins) for copyright issues, but i am not really among the Copyright problems regulars. If you want to help out on the less obvious cases of copyright issues, read that page thoroughly, and see who other isues have been dealt with. Read the archives of that page. You will soon come to know thew regulars in that field. Review that page, and Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, and WP:NFCC thoroughly, and dive in when you feel able. Members of the New page Patrol and of the Afc Reviewers are always on the lookout for copyright issues, but only as one of a number of quite different issues, particularly notability and promotion issues. Also see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 December 5 for a recent copyright issue with some contention. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, and for the information. I'll take a look at everything you have provided. Is there anything I should brush up on for new page patrolling as well? LampGenie01 (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LampGenie01, There is extensive discussion at Wikipedia:New pages patrol and at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School. The main thing is to well understand the difference between vandalism, well-meaning but unacceptable articles, acceptable but poorly written articles, and reasonable articles on topics new to the patroller. A member of the NPP should know and understand the speedy deletion criteria thoroughly, know which one applies to any given new page, and when none of them do. The NPP does have a formal membership, which permits use of some special tools, and requires approval. There is more, read those pages if you are still interested. We need more good NPP members. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hi Sir, I want your help in extracting some information from archived source. I'm asking you for this because I'm new to Wikipedia and I don't know how to extract information from archived source. I had asked other fellow editors to help in this but they only gave their views on talk page because they said that they are not sure about it. For details please visit Talk:Shamsheer Vayalil Thanks. (223.230.170.98 (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, I think my request seems no importance. Is this so? 😞😞

Thanks. (223.230.137.155 (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]

If you wanted to comment at Talk:Shamsheer Vayalil#Stevie Awards 2011, your input would be appreciated. I removed the award because it initially failed verification, but I agree that it feels like yet another Europe Business Assembly or at least a Who's Who or WP:NOTDIR. As far as the SPA issue, the /18 contains the relevant IP but likely unrelated users as well, from the looks of it. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(just to clarify, the above comment is meant for DESiegel) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ann Weaver Norton

Hi DESiegel, saw that you rejected the CSD on the above page with the reason "only untouched for 5 months". After reading WP:G13, it states the 6 months threshold is for human edits, and the last human to edit the draft was Robert McClenon in Feb 2019. Regards. 大诺史 (talk) 13:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, 大诺史 you are technically correct. I will delete the page. But it really is better if human editors leave G13 nominations to HasturBot, whoch should handle them all in the proper time. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I don't really like leaving this to the bot as other bots have been delaying the speedy when doing their task(s). I've came across abandoned drafts that were created as early as 2011. Regards. 大诺史 (talk) 13:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does no harm if things stay a bit over long, 大诺史. But do as you will. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bug?

There is a bug on my user page. There are a lot of headings but only one show up, as the other headings merge into the only one shown. How can I fix this? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (🚨) 13:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Retrieval

DESiegel:

I very much appreciate your comments on my USER:Ahjazzer talk page recently. I would like to enlist your skills re article retrieval. I uploaded only a partial draft, which I mistakenly thought would be responded to as such and that I would get some advice re my edits to the prose intro as well as my edits to the bibliography as well as their formats so that I wouldn't have edited the whole text wrong and then have to completely redo. It was declined due to being only a "test" document. I would very much like to retrieve the document so I wouldn't have to completely redo my edits, but it seems to have disappeared. My user name is User:Ahjazzer and the "disappeared" document is Draft:JohnRennieShort. Thank you! Ahjazzer (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ahjazzer. The draft is not in any way "lost" or "diappeared", it is at Draft:John Rennie Short. You can find a list of all your edits at Special:Contributions/Ahjazzer. You can get this same list from the "contributiosn" link in the upper right of every Wikipedia page. To see another user's contributions, just type [[Special:Contributions/UserName (replacing "UserName" with the name of the user you want to check on. When discussing an article, draft or other Wikipedia page, it nhaleps to give a link. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And npow some comments on the draft itself:

You should add appropriate wiki-links, as I did in this edit. Don't overdo it, and don't link to any article more than once in the whole draft.
Use the sites you have linked at the bottom of the draft to support statements already in the draft (as I did in this edit) and to add additional content supported by these sources. note how i resued one source multiple times by using the <ref name=> structure.
Wikipedia article may not be used as cited sources, but may be linked if they appear in the articel, or listed in a "See aso" section, as I did in this edit.
Every book should list the title, co-authors if any, publisher, year of publication, location of publication if known, and OCLC number if known, as I did in this edit. If ther are mulktiple editions, lis tthe first and possibly list any major rewrites. Don't bother to list minor rewrites or reissues.
Just delete the items that are shorter than book-length, unless one or two are bvery well known, at least in his field, and you ahve sources that specifically review those shorteer works.
Most important, find where independent people have written at some length about Shorts. Not things he has written or asked people to write Not anytjhing from any of his employers or close associates or family, not blogs or personal sites. Published independant reliable sources. Not interviews with him. Not press releases. Find and cite several such sources and things will be in good shape.

I hope that was helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, read refereeing for beginnes for more on how to do citations. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for all your advice—I uploaded a partial text this evening, revised according to many of the recommendations, mostly from DGG. I very much appreciated your recommendations and will absorb them and take them into account (tomorrow as I am exhausted from revising (partially) my text today. Ahjazzer (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Model checking revDel

Hi! I wonder why you deleted 3 revisions from Model checking. I saw the {{(cv-revdel}} template earlier, but from it I were unable to figure out which page's copyright could have been violated. Looking at the history page, only 4 characters were inserted (but 35+12 were deleted) by the 3 affected edits - so they can hardly have introduced a copyright violation.

Moreover, LampGenie01 deleted the text

Partial order reduction can be used (on explicitly represented graphs) to reduce the number of independent interleavings of concurrent processes that need to be considered. The basic idea is that if it does not matter, for the kind of things one intends to prove, whether A or B is executed first, then it is a waste of time to consider both the AB and the BA interleavings.

in her/his first edit (on 10 Dec), so I guess (s)he considered this text to be a copyright violation; however this text was already present (e.g.) in the version of 2 Dec, before the edits.

To summarize, I suspect something went wrong. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

You are most welcome sir.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS!

Thank you for the reply, also I changed my username from Gumshoe97 (You offered adoption for my account) To James The Bond 007!James The Bond 007 (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Shafer Article Draft

Hello David, I'm not sure if you received my response from the help desk msg. I appreciate you so much. Your message was encouraging and helpful. I listened to your advise and erased the discogs, allmusic, and wiki references. I added more related articles, as well as some changes. Would you please take another look before I hit re-submit. I'm doing my best and really appreciate your guidance. I hope to get my first published. My best to you. Draft:Dan_Shafer Jingleman2 (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it OK for me to make corrections?

Hi David. I just wanted to check with you if you would be OK if I were to correct any mistypings I happen to spot in your replies at the Teahouse? Once or twice I've noted the odd spelling error which you'd not spotted and which might have confused the OP. I make tons like that myself (!), and especially at the Teahouse I'm reasonably happy if someone fixes an unambiguous fat-fingered error of my own. I didn't want to do the same with any of your TH posts without checking with you first. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nick Moyes. You will find on my user page the following statement:

I am a poor typist when typing at speed (I am particularly prone to two-character transpositions), and my editing setup does not make it easy for me to spell-check my Wikipedia edits. (I routinely spell-check most other things I write.) I do spell-check major edits off line, but I generally do not spell-check smaller edits nor talk page posts. I apologize for any unclarity or cleanup work that results -- feel free to ask me to clean up after myself in articles.

So please do feel free to correct any typos, or ping me to fix them myself.

By the way, I notiece on User talk:LampGenie01 (where I am even now making a post) a comment of yours about reviewing your own work nd attitudes. Are you by any chance considering an RfA? While I haven't reviewed your work here in detail, what I have seen i like, and I suspoect you would do well. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David. I did do a quick word search through your userpage for reference to spellings, but clearly missed it. I'll fix anything glaring that I happen to spot, but only at the Teahouse. Yes, you've got it. I've been procrastinating over a nomination for the last 18 months or so, having been very busy in real life, and still feeling there's an awful lot I don't yet know. But things are easing up, and next month will see my tenth anniversary here (though only five years of really intensive editing activity), so it seemed rather an appropriate time to give in to Amory and Ritchie's constant nagging! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to go ahead. Good luck. Might I suggest the Wikipedia:Ten Year Society, then? I have been an admin for quite a while, as you no doubt saw on my user page, and I still have a lot to learn. I have also had some serious real-life breaks in contributions, and indeed i have twice been desysoped for inactivity.

Are you interested in an additional co-nominator? I'd have to do soem checking, of course, but tentatively i'd be intgersted. Oh and I reccomend to your attention Process is Important and essay i drfted many years ago. others have edited it, but much of the current text is my writing. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the statement is in section 4, "typos". I don't think the word "spelling" appears in it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting essay, and makes a lot of sense, though I don't remember encountering it before. Yes, I had noticed that you and Cullen both had the ~~Mile High Club~~ Ten Year Society badge on your user pages, so maybe I'll soon be eligible. Regarding a co-nominator, that's kind of you, though I do have two admins lined up already. As far as I can remember, the only time I've seen more than two nominators was in Floq's successful attempt to return to the fold, where (I think) there were something like five nominators. That said, I'm always open to positive criticism, so if you've ever seen anything in my work that you think is concerning or could be improved upon, do let me know. I've often thought we need a fourth obligatory question at RFA and that's "what concerns or reservations do you have about taking up the mop at this time?" For me the answer would be "not knowing enough yet" and "letting the community down". Nick Moyes (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Draft:Yasmeen Al Maimani

Hi, hope am not disturbing you. I created another draft - Draft:Yasmeen Al Maimani - and have looked after just about every aspect that I could think of. Can you please take a look and advise/make suggestions as to how I could further improve on it? Thanks in advance, regards, Tycheana (talk) 15:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hello, Tycheana. On the whole it looks fairly good. But the 2nd half of the 2nd paragrah in the section "Breakthrough" seems to be largely copied from https://gaca.gov.sa/web/en-gb/news/23/06/2029-aa and this is not scceptable. This must be rewritten significantly.

I do not know the reputations of the citeds sources, and cannot judge their reliability off-hand. Please maek sure thst they are, in fact, reliabel sources with a reputation for accuracy and editorial control.

There might be an issue with the policy WP:BLP1E. This says that when a person is notable only for a single event, it is usualy better to write an article about the event, rather than a biographical article about the person. In this case the entire draft is focused on the event of Al Maimani becomming the first woman pilot in Saudi Arabia. It might be worth changing the draft title and doing a littel rewritign to make it clearly about this event, not about a person. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DESiegel, many thanks for the feedback, will rewrite the portion in question ASAP. Cited sources are noteworthy publications in the Middle East and although she seems to have received plenty of coverage, I chose these because they came across as being the most neutral. Writing about the event as in the title would be something like - Saudi Women in the Aviation sector....?? Thanks again, Tycheana (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DESiegel, done with the rewriting, please check if it is sounding informative and fresh now. Also, there is this particular user here who came across my draft and is pushing me to move it into the article space. I have never interacted with this user before and am actually wondering what their intention might be. What do you think? Thanks & regards, Tycheana (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DESiegel, my draft has been approved and is in the main space now. To express my gratitude for your help, I would like to gift you a barnstar -

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		Thank You - your observation was a big help in improving the quality of my draft

Thanks & regards, Tycheana (talk) 05:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hello! from James

I saw your message on my talk page, sorry I couldn't reply promptly, I really like the last idea you suggested! I would love to edit the articles that you may suggest.James The Bond 007 (talk) 13:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since you wrote this message on my page, James The Bond 007, I am responding here. Usually i try to keep conversation together, so if i message you on your talk page, please in future respond there, including a ping to notify me. (Or you can use a talkback note instead. Twinkle will let you do this in a couple of clicks.)

I was hoping you would suggest a topic or topics you feel some interest in. But since you did not, here are some suggestions.

Pick three articles from Category:All articles needing copy edit (which currently includes over 550 articles). Pick any three you like. Read through each and find any spelling errors, errors of grammar, poor English, or incorrect formatting. Fix any problems that you feel comfortable fixing. If there are any you feel unsure about, leave me a message here on my talk page describing the issue and including a wiki-link to the article. If there are any issues you want to bring to the attention of other editors as well as myself, post on the article talk page and include a ping for me.
Look in Category:Massachusetts stubs. Pick three articles from the category. For each, try to find an additional reliable source about the topic. (If you can't find a source, pick another article until you have one source each for three articles.) Add at least one fact from the source to the article, and include a proper citation, using <ref>...</ref> tags and a citation template in each case. If you can add more than one fact or more than one source, feel free to do so. Use a proper edit summary when inserting the fact and the source. When you ar done, place a message on my talk page. If you have any problems or questions, drop me a message with a link to the article, or perhaps better, post on the article talk page and ping me.
Do not worry about page protection on your user page. So far there has been no vandalism, and page protection is normally only used when there has been significant persistent vandalism on a page, with the exception of a few high-risk pages, such as those linked from the main page, and templates that are used in hundreds of thousands of other pages.

See if those tasks appeal at all. They are typical ways to improve content here. Happy editing. There is no deadline or time scale for doing these tasks, but please work on them before doing much more on your user page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh,, James The Bond 007, please rad referencing for begginers on how to format and use citations to sources. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, and what can I do to improve the article in my sandbox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by James The Bond 007 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to Draft:Porygon Pokemon which used to be in your sandbox, and which you moved to draft space on 30 October 2019‎? I don;'t see any other sandbox in your contributions. In future please supply a WP:LINK when referring to an article, draft, or other page, if at all possible.

First of all, Draft:Porygon Pokemon has no Lead section Such a section should summerize the article, and indicate its general nature and the reasons (or most important reasons) why it is notable, and put it in context.

Next, i question if a description of a fictional creation such as a Pokemon should be describrd as having "Biological characteristics". Also, The "Biological characteristics" section seems to be written at least partly from an "in-universe" point-of-view (PoV). That means it is written as of Pokemon were real. The draft should make clear what is part of the fiction and what is not.

Further, if there are reveiws or other commentary about Porygon Pokemon that have been published by reliable sources, their veiws should be included, carefully attributed and cited to the sources.

I hope that helps. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New message from LampGenie01

Hello, DESiegel. You have new messages at LampGenie01's talk page.
Message added 15:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Not sure if the ping went through or not. LampGenie01 (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Xmas!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

James The Bond 007 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you James The Bond 007. I will take it in the spirit it is obviously intended, and i wish you a happy Christmas and new Year season as well.

You might want to be a little careful with such messages in future. not everyone celebrates Christmas, and not everyone who does does so in a specifically religious way. I, for example, happen to be Jewish (indeed my name is about as stereotypically Jewish as someone named Francis Xavier Donahue would be stereotypically Catholic, not that it is safe to rely on either sterotype.)

So again, Thank you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will take note of that, and instead wish people a happy new year! James The Bond 007 (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Fibre Channel Protocol

I am having a go at making this article understandable to non-experts and was wondering if you could tell me what you think of my efforts. I have left my effort here whilst I'm working on it. Thanks in advance. LampGenie01 (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So far, LampGenie01, your edits seem to be removing technical information, but not replacing it with anything. I would urge that while technical info might perhaps be removed from the lead section, it should probably then be moved into the body -- the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body in any case. But it would particularly help to add some less technical description of what the protocol is and what it does.

Also, the article does not currently have any inline citations. If you could find some appropriate source(s) and add inline citations, that would be very useful. See [[WP:REFB| for more on how to format citatiosn if you are unclear on that. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In future, it is usually better to work on an article in place, possibly using {{in use}} or {{under construction}} to avoid edit conflicts. But soemtiems creating a work page as you did here is the better way. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking behind using the sandbox to edit in was so that, if I managed to make a complete mess of it, at least that mess would be confined to the sandbox and not to a main page article. I will work on the rest of your suggestions though. Thank you very much for your thoughts on the matter. LampGenie01 (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, LampGenie01, that all versions are always saved, and anyone can revert to any prior version with only a couple of mouse clicks. So even if you "mess something up", the mess can be removed quickly and easily, by any editor, or by yourself. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Should I continue my efforts on the main page rather than in my sandbox then? LampGenie01 (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Either is acceptable, LampGenie01. The advantages to working in the actual article are that others can see and perhaps comment on your individual changes, and if some editor thinks a change should be reverted, s/he can revert only that small change and not all of your work. Also, you don't need to worry about incorporating edits that others may have made while you are working. The advantage of working in a separate page is that no one else is likely to notice or comment on your work until you post it to the article, unless you ask someone specifically to do so, as you asked me above. Also, you can try al kinds of odd things and no one will complain. Some editors work one way, soem the other, but editing in pace is, I think, more common. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HELP!!

There is a user called Tinjaw, and he has constantly been harassing me on my talkpage, and even after me and a fellow editor left him a warning he didn't stop, please refer to my talkpage's deleted content for more information. James The Bond 007 (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James The Bond 007, I posted to User talk:Tinjaw with this post which I link here in case Tinjaw chooses to remove that post for that talk page before you read it, which that editor has an absolute right to do. Please read it.

What Tinjaw posted to your user talk page page was uncivil, but it was not vandalism, and it was caused by your greeting, which aas i warned you above, not everyone on Wikipedia would appreciate. Please do not post on User talk:Tinjaw again, nor ping that user, unless you are invited to do so by Tinjaw at some future time. I am sorry you had a somewhat harsh experience, but that was a long way from "constant harassment". For better examples see my interactions with User:JackSarfatti back in 2005 on Talk:Jack Sarfatti/Archive 3 and User talk:JackSarfatti/archive 1#Editing Block and subsequent sections where the user threatened to go to my address (which he posted) and have me served with legal papers. You can read my response if you like. For an even better set of examples, read Gamergate. In any case, please be more careful with warning templates. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can I apologize to tinjaw? James The Bond 007 (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James The Bond 007, Lets wait and see how tinjaw does or does not respond to my post on User talk:Tinjaw first. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He already responded, and didn't seem mad for some reason, sorry about this mess I promise this won't happen again.James The Bond 007 (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So I see, James The Bond 007. You have apologized, now let it drop please, and keep this in mind going forward. I think s/he (I have no idea what gender Tinjaw may be) overreacted, but so did you. If you want to quote the bible: "A soft answer turns away wrath." DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, i didn't quote the Bible, I found this Wikilove message on another user's page, and then sent it to a few other users.James The Bond 007 (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found the message here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SpicyMilkBoy James The Bond 007 (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays

Interstellarity (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy holidays!

--Sir Bond 007 (James The Bond 007) (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I think you will like this one :-) --Sir Bond 007 (James The Bond 007) (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays!

AlanM1 is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! and chag sameach! You've certainly done your share of mitzvot here in recent days. It's a good influence on the rest of us. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Merry!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello DESiegel, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020.
Happy editing,
★Trekker (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Your infinite patience....

...is lauded. Vis-a-vis JTB 007, I found this person actively disruptive at articles, at Teahouse, and especially on other editors' Talk pages. I know at one point the editor claimed to be young, but in my opinion the editing expertise suggested an older person - knowledgeable in Wikipedia editing - and malicious. I appreciate your patience, having originally volunteering to be a mentor, and especially so for your effort to provide a written guideline for this person to follow to acknowledge past error and commit to future good behavior. David notMD (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mut say, I belive tht you are seriously mistaken about that, David notMD, although I of course cannot be sure. But the impatience, the eagerness for advanced roles and recognition, the focus on Pokemon articles, the casual mention of learning about the Mid-east in school, and the tendency to imitate both good and bad actions seen from others, says to me young and inexperienced. Perhaps I am fooled, and inexperienced can still be disruptive. i also am seeing short fuse more than malicious, several times JB has apologized for one action or another I think sincerely. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I agree with DES. We've recently learned from experience with a couple of other similar users, with very similar patterns. I don't have kids, but my friends do, and it all feels very familiar, especially the compressed nature of time to them. Now, it could all be some great mind-****, but I don't think so. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David, you are to be commended for trying so hard to support this editor. I didn't look in detail at this particular individual as I've been quite busy recently, but their actions and your responses to them did remind me of three young and over-enthusiastic editors I've encountered, all of whom I believe were on the high-functioning autism scale. One (The Good User) has gone on to do great things here, and seems to be getting the balance between school and wikilife about right; the other two sadly went on to get themselves blocked, despite my best efforts to guide, support and occasionally chastise them (example). One of those was also a CU block; the other for an unacceptably aggressive and rude (and out of character) outburst, and it makes me wonder whether admins and editors like us who help at the interface with new and problematic editors actually have enough training to understand the needs and motivations of particular groups of young editors, and how to best guide them most effectively. I for one know little about dealing with people with Asperger's, and there are precious few resources (apart from this useful essay) to guide us. Unless they've self-declared, it seems impossible to say to someone, "look you're causing problems; are you on the autism scale and, if so, how can I better help you?"' But I do wonder whether there's an overlooked issue here which could benefit from a bit of WMF attention for training and support from their soon-to-be-reorganised Community Engagement department, or some other area of our own community (such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Autism). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those kind words, Nick Moyes. I interacted a bit with The Good User first at the Teahouse, and then off it, early in his or her career as an editor here, and I agree that the behavior patter was similar, although JB007 was in a, say, higher pitch than TGU.

I am always dubious about attempts to assign a medical diagnosis to someone based on Wikipedia behavior. I think it is far too likely to be wrong and to relay on stereotypes, unless perhaps the person doing it does have significant training. I certainly have had few in-person experiences with people who have autism or Asperger's, and reading Temple Grandin or The Speed of Dark is not the same thing. For the matter of that I have no particular training for helping young people with no specific medical issues, although I have a bit more personal experience there, but I have never been a parent nor a professional teacher.

I do think there are admins who are a bit too ready to block for what is basically "User:Newbie is a bother and is causing hassles. JB007 was a bit over the top, but I think I could have got him to redirect his energies. As to the socking stuff, I can't asses that without knowledge. Well perhaos JB will be unblocked yet. If so, we will see what happens. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I do not see how David notMD comes to the conclusion that JB was an older person - knowledgeable in Wikipedia editing - and malicious. No one knowledgable in Wikipedia editing would have spent months building up a persona, only to toss it away by tagging an FA for speedy deletion as A1. And JB's early edits simply do nbot show excessive editing skill. No I fear DNM is simply underestimating how quickly a focused youngster can pick up technical tricks and skills -- and JB never did any complex article space edits, no table work, no ref formatting, no template work, etc. Thanks again, Nick Moyes. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Moyes and DESiegel, I feel we should create a WikiProject that specializes in helping younger editors like this one become productive editors and so we reduce the number of younger editors that get blocked. Please see Wikipedia:Help_desk#Creating_a_WikiProject and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#Creating_a_WikiProject. Interstellarity (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, David, I agree it would be seen as insulting to make assumptions about people but, then again, it is also a sign of good faith to make allowances for certain poor behaviour at the start of someones wiki careers if, supporting them as keenly as you have just tried to do, leads to them becoming productive contributors in the future. I also agree that it is too simple to block someone indefinitely for a few silly mistakes, assuming them to be malicious, rather than maybe imposing a few very short, sharp blocks as 'shots across the bow' so as to make them stop and pay attention. I'm surprised (apart from old RFA questions) we don't have something akin to the WP:Wikipediholism test such as "How well do you understand how Wikipedia works? Test yourself!" Maybe we have, and I've just not stumbled across it. Since drafting this earlier today, I note that Interstellarity has taken the initiative and put forward an idea at WT:WikiProject Editor Retention. I will try and comment there in due course. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Dove

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ―Buster7 ☎ 14:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft articles.

I was wondering if there was a specific area to create drafts in (and to submit them for review once they are done). I hope you are having a good day. LampGenie01 (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are two usual places to create drafts, LampGenie01. The first is known as "Draft space" It simply means any page whose name starts with "Draft:" For example, to start a draft about "NewTopic" one would create the page Draft:NewTopic.

The second place is in your own userspace. This means pages whose name starts with "User:LampGenie01/". So to create a userspace draft about NewTopic, you would create User:LampGenie01/NewTopic.

Pages in draft space implicitly invite other editors to work on them along with the creator. Pages in userspace do not, or not so much, although if there is a good reason other editors may edit them, or if invited specifically. Per WP:OWN, no editor "owns" any Wikipedia page and has the exclusive right to control it. Even one' own user page may be edited by others if there is good reason to do so. But most of the time, other editors will not do anything to userspac drafts unless the user specifically invites them to do so, and not always then.

To create a new page that does not currently exist, you can:

Edit any page, such as your default sandbox, and add a link to the new page, as I did above, creating a red link. Preview or save the page, then click on the red link. Then start editing the new page. Or,
Search for the exact name of the desired page, including any namespace such as "Draft:" or "User:". just as you would search for an existing page, in the "Search Wikipedia" box at the top right of any Wikipedia page, or via Special:Search. When search does not find the page, it will display a message inviting you to create it, Click the link provided to create the new page. Proceed to edit it as normal.

Does that answer your question, LampGenie01? Woulkd you care to tell me what sort of draft you plan to create? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, to submit a draft for review under Articles for creation, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft and save. That will put it into the pool of drafts awaiting reveiw. But there can be a significant delay -- last I checked ther were nover 3,700 drafts waiting, and not all that many active reviewers. But you do gain the advantage of an experienced editor reviewing the page. If the reviewer approves it, s/he will move the draft to the main article space, give it an initial quality assessment, and add it to any appropriator wiki-projects. A reviewer may or may not do minor cleanup on a draft. If the reviewer does not approve, s/he should give soem feedback on what problems were found. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly does. Thanks for the info. I found a list of football season articles for Japanese football clubs on the Articles for Creation list that I thought I'd like to edit. I'm more than happy for other editors to jump in as well, so it seems like draft space is the best spot to do this. I've left the list on my user page if you're interested in what I'm (hopefully) looking at creating. LampGenie01 (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, LampGenie01. Notice that there usually should not be an article about a particular season of a sports organization (club, league, team, whatever) until after there is an overall article about the organization. Please be sure that there is enough coverage of the season to make it notable.

I notice that you are working on Draft:2013 Kashima Antlers season, and that the current references are all bare URLs. Please read Referencing for Beginners if you have not already done so, and supply such additional information as: title of article/page; name of site/publication (should not be a domain, but an actual name); author if known; publication date if know; publisher id not redundant with name of publication; access date (retrieved date) for online sources; page number if source is paginated. These can help to understand the nature of the source, and to find it again if the link changes or goes dead. You can also search for a current archive URL and add it as an advance precaution if you are using citation templates, which I would recommend (use |archive-url=).

I hope this also helps. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly does. I've added the ref changes to my to-do list and will read the referencing for beginners page as soon as possible. LampGenie01 (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I think I've fixed the refs now. Do they look better? LampGenie01 (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Better, but not yet as they should be, LampGenie01. Consider the first reference in that draft. It now looks like:

<ref>{{cite web |title=CLUB PROFILE｜KASHIMA ANTLERS OFFICIAL WEBSITE |url=https://www.so-net.ne.jp/antlers/en/club/profile.html |website=www.so-net.ne.jp |accessdate=23 December 2019}}</ref>

The title should be either "Club Profile" or perhaps better "Club Profile:Kashima Antlers" It should not use all caps. It should not include a pipe (aka vertical bar). It should not include he name of the site. The |website= parameter should be either "Kashima Antlers" or "Kashima Antlers Official Site. It should not be a domain name, and sould never include "www" or other thinks that are part of a URL, but not a name, such as ".com" or ".jp". Similar changes should be made to all other references. I suspect that you used one of the various tools that convert a URL to a citation. These are helpful, but one can never trust the output. They are very mechanical, and have no judgement, and are not as good as they could be. They have a tendency to stick the site name in the title, and use the domain name for the site name. One must always go mover their output and correct such issues. Some use incorrect date formats, also. Some mis bylines (author names) or publication dates when these are in fact present. This is no doubt because there is no standard for where these are placed or how they are formatted in web sites. A human can easily figure it out, but a program has much more trouble. Still this is already a large improvement.

Note that you should always change titles to title case, even if the source uses all upper case or all lower case or some other case format. If the source is not in English, please use the |language= parameter, and if possible provide an English version of the title in the |trans-title= parameter. Date formats should be consistent, see MOS:DATES and MOS:DATEUNIFY. You can use |quote= to indicate the particular wording in the source tht supports the article if this might be hard to find. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block Him

He His Spreading Some Fake Propaganda Which Influence The Voting Patterns In India He Recently Done a Edit Regarding Jammu & Kashmir National Conference There He Changed Ideology Of The Party So Please Block Him Sir KumarVenati (talk) 20:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KumarVenati, please read Wikipedia:Blocking policy. You will see that blocks ar for very specific sorts of issues. Intentionally adding false content is one, but an honest dispute over content is not. In any case, blocks are rarely made unless a user has been warned, and has persisted in the same improper conduct after multiple warnings, except for a few very serious issues. You would need to show more exactly what Yashodhan Ganu has done tht is improper, and cite sources showing that the edits are clearly incorrect. "Propaganda" is a loaded term, usually best avoided in Wikipedia disputes. Be careful of Casting aspersions. Note that the Arbitration committee has said: An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums. In this case that would be WP:ANI or WP:AIV. Evidence would mean Diffs of improper edits. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:57, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:2013 Kashima Antlers season ref fixes

Hey Dave. I hope your holidays are going well. First off, sorry for the edit conflict. The reason I was continuing doing the ref descriptions using the automated tools was that I was going to fix them all after the rest of the article had been done. However, a gut feeling told me that it wasn't a good idea so I decided to go and fix them (hopefully). Is there still anything that I'm missing from them at all? Best regards! LampGenie01 (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted some comments on this subject to your user talk page, LampGenie01. By the way, you got an edit conflict, but I didn't, and in any case ECs have long since become routine to me, no problem.

It mis fine to use the tool and fix up later, or fix up each as you insert it, whatever is easier for you, as long as things are in draft space. But do complete fixes before submitting for review, and in main article space, please fix as you go or within a short time during an {{in use}} session. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:David B. Axelrod

Hi DES. I think I understand why you did that, but I'm not sure if that was the best thing to do without at least going to WP:DRV; it looks like you basically made a WP:REFUND request based upon a Teahouse Post for something that it not really covered under REFUND. Perhaps administrators are given a bit of discretion when it comes to this type of thing, but I fear that unless you intend to do so yourself or are aware of someone other than the subject of the article who is willing and capable to work on improving this as a draft, it's likely going to end up deleted per WP:G13 in six months or so declined by AfC if simply submitted as is. On the oft chance that an AfC reviewer, who's completely unaware of the previous AfD, decides that the article is borderline enough to be accepted even as is, the net result would be that previous AfD would've been essentially overturned outside of proper process. You might want to clarify what you did and your reasons for doing so on the draft's talk page so that others are at least aware of this and don't assume the worst. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, as I tend to agree with MarchJuly, I’m not sure the individual at the Teahouse even really wants it back as a draft. They haven’t expressed any intention to work to improve the article, in fact they specifically said “I am not the person to improve, defend, prmote my own entry”.

I don’t believe, when they said, “yes, I would appreciate the restoration of the entry” they understood or intended that this meant having it as a draft for them to work on. Their only clearly articulated request has been a review of the previous decision or a “a further objective evaluation”, in which case surely DRV is most suitable. I’m just not sure restoring the draft solves very much, and certainly risks creating issues. Hug^syrup 07:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Marchjuly and Hugsyrup: Yes, the poster at the Teahouse, who claims to be Axelrod, and I see no reason to disbelieve it, did not clearly ask for a restoration, but there is really no way to do the kind of analysis sought without being able to find neww sources and work them into the draft. I have already spotted, in one of his deleted posts, soemthign that is at least a Claim of significance -- Axelrod has credit for a new poetic form listed in Turco. In case you don't know about that, Lewis Turco is the creator of the Terzanelle and a major figure in the "New Formalism". Our article about him says: A second edition of The Book of Forms: A Handbook of Poetics, originally published in 1968 and known to The New Formalists as "The poet’s Bible" was published as The New Book of Forms in 1986, and a Third Edition appeared in 2000. A listing in that is in my view significant. I intend to add that to the draft. I expect to do some additional work on the draft as well.

I will (and had already planned to) add {{oldafdmulti}} to Draft talk:David B. Axelrod, so that any AfC reviewer will know about the previous deletion, and have a link to the AfD. I will also be messaging Axelrodthepoet

Note that at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#Clarify purpose I tried to make it explicit that DRV was the place to go for review of such situations, and several editors, particularly SmokeyJoe and WilyD said such reviews should be considered out-of-scope for DRV. So, I'm not going through one. SmokeyJoe wrote that f a topic has been deleted more than once after AfD or other community consensus, then I think it is very good practice to use REFUND and draftspace to create a better draft. I think that draft should be submitted before bringing it to DRV which is currently the last word in that still-open discussion.

I take note of your concerns, and yes this draft might wind up deleted again. But the AfD was long enough ago that I think a re-try is justified, nor was there any serious problem with promotion, only with notability. Three-fourths of our current drafts are probably worse. I honor your concerns, but I think this action was reasonable under the circumstances. Mayne I should have insisted that the Teahouse poster go through WP:REFUND at least, but in the circumstances, it seemed of little value. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you or some other editor are WP:BOLDly trying to create a new article because you or they believe it's a subject which now can be written about then I think that's fine. I wasn't aware there was some ongoing general discussion about this type of thing at WT:DRV, but I was aware that AfD articles can be boldly recreated without a DRV when someone, either knowingly or unknowingly, does so in a way which address all of the issues which led to the article being deleted. In the past when I've come across something like this, I usually ask the closing admin or at WP:AN about it to see whether G4 might be applicable before tagging it as such. If the closing admin or another admin says G4 doesn't apply, then I usually just ask if it's OK to post something about G4 not being applicable on the "new" article's talk page.

In this case, my concern wasn't really that the user asking about this at the Teahouse wasn't who they were claiming to be or was trying to create an article about themselves, but rather that they seemed unhappy that the previous article was deleted for the reasons given in the AfD. They didn't seem to want a "new" article written based upon some new sources or new information, but rather the old article restored (I'm pretty sure they weren't thinking about having it restored as a "draft") because they thought the AfD was flawed. That can happen sometimes, but I thought that was something that required a DRV. So, if it appears to others that the subject is just frivolously trying to recreate the article, then that might be something which would not only led to re-deletion but also the subject being possibly warned or blocked.

FWIW, if you or some other editor, including the subject of the article, want to work on the draft and fix the issues raised in the AfD, then that's fine. I don't think the author should try and move the draft to the mainspace himself, but rather submit it to AfC for review or let another editor do it instead. If this time around enough improvements have been made so that the article can survive a new AfD, then that would be positive for Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DES. Thanks for the ping. There is a draft. Yes, I think that a proponent for the subject should submit the draft prior to launching a DRV to challenge the previous deletion. The act of submitting is a clear declaration that the editor thinks this draft is what should be considered for return to mainspace.

However, DRV is meant to be for challenging the deletion process, a forum for correcting an error made. The AfD was in 2015, which is considered a long time ago. The obvious question will be: What has changed since the AfD in 2015. Did someone find more sources? If yes, and if these are notability-attesting sources, see WP:NAUTHOR, then DRV is not needed. If no, then you need a good argument for why the 2015 decision was a mistake. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was pinged - yes, at DRV, if you wanted it restored to draft space, the response would be something like "Speedy restore, no reason to waste time at DRV". That said, if I'm following correctly, and no one is intending to try to address the issues that lead to its original deletion, it'll sit at Draft: for six months then get G13'd. I don't see any merit in the concern there's an extremely remote chance a G4-able draft gets through AfC; it could still be G4'd or re-AfD'd. A long discussion to pre-empt the remote possibility of a short discussion isn't efficient or anything ... Wily D 06:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@WilyD, SmokeyJoe, Marchjuly, and Hugsyrup: Thank you all for your comments and concerns. The draft has been restored, it will either be improved enoguh for an experienced editor to move it back to mainspace in god faith, or it won't. I intend to do at least soem improvement work on the draft, as time permits. I will also advise the Teahouse poster, Axelrodthepoet, and we will see what, if anything, that editor will produce. If it winds up G13'd, well, I tried. Whether in similar cases in future a REFUND request or a DRV discussion would be wise to hold can be discussed elsewhere. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@WilyD, SmokeyJoe, Marchjuly, and Hugsyrup: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays!

Hello DESiegel: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Recent Issue

hi DES, Thanks for the reply. I did not want to add this on the talk page due to the contents of it, so Posting it here. This is for your understanding. Pappu literally means nothing in Hindi. It is a common name for children in India and Pakistan. Though there are some movie related and cultural references of the word. In this case the word was used by some of the rival politicians as a derogatory statement trying to imply that he is stupid. This is overall useless for the pedia article. To give you a similar analogy, consider the case of Democrats in the US calling Trump a Bigot. You can debate if he is one or not and one can write a long list of reasons democrats are using this word, but at the end, the article on trump does not need to include that, even though there are many sources were someone can be seen calling Trump a bigot. In future if you need any help on teahouse related to complicated political issues, dropping a note on WP:INDIA to seek some expert advice would be a good idea. regards. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBig Xrayᗙ 20:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Whpq

Hello, DESiegel. You have new messages at Whpq's talk page.
Message added 22:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Whpq (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:2013 Kashima Antlers season as complete as I can make it.

Is there anything obvious that I have missed or can I go ahead and submit it for review? LampGenie01 (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, again, LampGenie01. The formatting, including the formatting of both tables looks good, although I would welcome a legend to explain the meaning of the background color choices in the tables.

However, the part of the sports notability guideline known as [[WP:NSEASONS|Individual seasons}} says: Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that those articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created. Such prose seems a little lacking in the draft at the moment, but that is the only lack that I see. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Draft:Shiva Makinian

Hi DESiegel, How are you? I wrote a page from Shiva Makinian but you deleted it . I understand this problem and i want help me if possible for you. i want clear this problem. I am the manager at www.negahtheatre.com website. i want donating permission to copy material already online on this website. But I don't know What is text and where to put the license text on the website or page.

after it; Will this action solve the problem? And will I Can the publish: Draft:Shiva Makinian?

Please help me. have a greet day, Keyhan narimannia (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Keyhan narimannia. I am well. As you will see if you read Granting us permission to copy material already online, the web page should carry a notice releasing it under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts) or that it is in the public domain. The recommended form of words is:

:The text of this website [or page, if you are specifically releasing one section] is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)

Including such a license statement on the web page would avoid any copyright problem. You should be aware that this license will allow not only Wikipedia, but anyone in the world to reuse or modify the content for any purpose at all, including for commercial use, with no obligation to pay any royalty or license fee. The only obligation would be to give proper credit (attribution) to the original source, and to make the content available under the same license. This license cannot be canceled, the rights once granted under it remain valid, so you will want to be sure that you are willing to release the content of the page for use by anyone at all to use in any way, including creating and distributing modified versions. (See also Wikipedia:Copyrights.)

Such a release would deal with the copyright issue, but there would still be the issue of promotion. Wikipedia is not to be used for advertising or promotion of any subject. The delet4ed draft contained some promotional phrases such as having participated in many prestigious theater festivals. Such phrases would need to be edited to conform with Wikipedia's neutral point of view.

The deleted draft also had some grammar and formatting issues. For example, titles should be given in Title Case, not in ALL CAPS. But that kind of issue can be dealt with by normal editing.

I did not check the sources cited in the draft. Before the draft would be approved, there would need to be multiple independent published reliable sources cited. each of which discussed Makinian in some depth and detail. Brief mentions and directory entries (including simple listings of performances) do not help to establish notability. Neither do interviews, statements by the subject or her business associates, nor blogs or fan sites. Three to five high-quality sources with detailed discussion are usually enough -- citing so many sources that the good ones get lost is almost as unwise as citing none at all.

I hope that all this would be helpful. 16:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

hello DESiegel

I put this text on the page as you said. But if you say to remove the (http://www.negahtheatre.com/shiva-makinian/) link I will do it.

:The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)

And if the deleted draft is available, I'll do the grammar, formatting issues and other things with your help (as it was great before).

Best regards, Keyhan narimannia (talk) 13:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keyhan narimannia I have restored Draft:Shiva Makinian after confirming the release on the source web site. I do not have time to extensivly edit it right away. Please:

Remove statements of evaluation or praise such as many prestigious theater festivals (unless such statements are directly cited to an independent and reliable source).
Titles of plays, films, and other woirks should be in Title Case, not in ALL CAPS.
As per WP:DOB a living person's exact date of birth should not be include unles sit either has already been wide;ly published, or hjas been published by the person herself, such as on her own web site. If heither of those applies, reduce to just the year. If one doe. support with a citation please.
Minor or less important awards should be removed from the table, major ones should be cited (add a "ref" or "cite" column to the table, perhaps)
The ratio of tables to prose is rather high. If more prose, supported nby relaible sources, and relevant, could be added, that would help.
I will make grammar suggestion or edits when I can.

Happy editing. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DESiegel Thanks for restoring the Draft:Shiva Makinian. I edited this draft as you said.

I removed many prestigious theater festivals and changed it to theater festivals
I edited the titles of plays, films and other work as you said
I put a reference link for DOB from (http://www.negahtheatre.com/shiva-makinian/) website. it has licence. And if it is not acceptable for wikipedia, i can remove the DOB. Because I could not put the (Birth yeare and age) in the Infobox person. if you can help to me, i do it and thank you.
Minor or less important awards is deleted. The remaining awards on the table are related to festivals that are important in Iran. The site of these festivals does not have an English-language section and I cannot identify them as reference.
I appreciate you for trying to grammar

at the end:

Shiva Makinian has many reference for searching the Persian language. But in English she has fewer references. I've used them in this draft. Can I use valid Persian references for this page?

Thank you, Keyhan narimannia (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Clifford

The article has been deleted as G12 but the website its infringing (https://www.morebooks.de/store/gb/book/gary-clifford/isbn/978-613-8-34285-4) appears to be a circular source. Read the first sentence of the shorttext. Clovermoss (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Clovermoss. I have several times warned others about that very error, so I have no excuse. I may well have been too quick on the trigger. I will investigate further and restore if that seems justified. The notability issues would still exist, of course. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the notabilty issues still exist. As for circular sources, everyone makes mistakes. Thank you for your diligence as an admin in addressing my concerns and your replies to me at WP:UAA. Clovermoss (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you restore the talk page as well? I'm not sure what was on it, but G8 doesn't really apply now that the article has been restored. Again, thank you for your diligence. Clovermoss (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Already restored, Clovermoss, and tagged with {{backwards copy}}, to prevent a repeat of this error. Now for the notability issues. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Clovermoss, according to https://athensservices.com/commercial-services/city-of-glendora/ Athens Services is a local, family-owned waste collection and recycling company that has been a fixture in the greater Los Angeles community for the past 60 years. Garbage indeed. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And later on that page it says "By Gary Clifford, Executive Vice President, Athens Services" so this looks like simple COI/autobiography editing to me, Clovermoss, not UPE. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This is the first UAA report of mine to not be a blatant username polciy violation, and I was too quick to act based on the information that was available to me at the time. In general, I try to be cautious about making assumptions about others. It's always possible that I could be wrong. Paid editing is one of those things that should be based on much more than mere suspicion. Again, thanks for taking the time to address all of my concerns. Clovermoss (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help me sir i want remove my photos from wikipedia permanently Karki kancha (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For improving Gary Clifford's article. Thank you for adding the Campaign sign arrests section. Clovermoss (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should be aware, Clovermoss, that I am doing that in the interest of fairness I found that info during a WP:BEFORE search, prior to putting the article up for AfD. I still plan to put it up, but I want it to be as full as possible first. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still appreciate it. I think improving an article to be the best it can be before nominating to AfD is still admirable. Anyways, I hope to see you around sometime in the future. You appear to be someone who is kind and considerate, and it's always nice to interact with people who are nice. Clovermoss (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Clovermoss, I do try. The page is now at AfD. I rather suspect the subject would not consider the changes an improvement, however. But they are all true and sourced. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:BQ and `{{Cquote}}`

I'm glad you pre-empted StarryGrandma's RfC plans. I've not seen an RfC-drafting process get that drawn out in years, and never over something this trivial. While you didn't write exactly the RfC I would have, it's getting the job done. It's unfortunate in a sense that someone else tried to hijack it with their own "anti-RfC" that is really trying to change the guideline not answer how to implement it (basically a form of time-shifted forum shopping against already-established consensus). But, in the end, it actually helps us get to an answer faster, since most responses to that counter-proposal have been firmly negative rather than it leading to deeply split camps and a dubious consensus. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!

Hello DESiegel: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, Clovermoss (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Thank You

For your helpful comments! Carol Berney Gonzalez (talk) 04:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Berney Gonzalez I hope that you will act on them. I am pleased to be of help when I can, it is a large part of what I do here. If, after you work on the suggestiodsn give, you ahve further questions, please feel free to post here, or to come back to the teahouse. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that! 50.53.104.78 (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If that was you, Carol Berney Gonzalez, you will want to be careful about editing while logged out by accident. It can cause confusion. It can even be taken as an attempt to evade scrutiny when nothing of the sort was intended. I use a small script which turns the "publish changes" button green when i am logged in, and I don't lick if it isn't green. It consists of one line in a user's common.css page:

#wpSave {background-color: lightgreen;}

In your case it would be added to User:Carol Berney Gonzalez/common.css. It isn't even really a script, just a display setting. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, yes, it was me - un-logged in! I feel like a bull in the Wiki china shop! thanks for this tip as well. Carol Berney Gonzalez (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Carol Berney Gonzalez. The reason i have that script is that I used to make that error several times a day. And that was long after I became an admin.

Oh, I just noticed something which may serve as a further example in the draft It now reads Her first major theater appearance was in the 1955 ANTA Paris production of The Skin of Our Teeth (link) with Helen Hayes, Mary Martin and George Abbott. but the external link goes to a Playbill page about the Broadway production of 1955, not the Paris production (although the leads seem to have been the same) and that page does not mention Bernay at all, making it useless as a source for the statement that she appeared in that production. Every link will need a similar check. Also, the mention of the famous stars she appeared with seems like an attempt at notability by association, which generally does not work, and looks bad. Just mention the production (if it is sourced) and let the source show the rest of the cast. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability by association" - valuable point and guilty as charged. I'll edit that out and check for other name-dropping then check all sources. Carol Berney Gonzalez (talk) 04:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate

It appears you've duplicated the AFD. Praxidicae (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Praxidicae. I have copied my nomination statementonto the one you started, since it was first. I will then delete the one i created. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion of Images "Karki kancha"

Hello sir, I want to delete my pictures from Wikipedia, but i didn't get perfect reason please help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karki kancha (talk • contribs) 12:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Super-refractory status epilepticus

Hi, DES! At Draft:Super-refractory status epilepticus you removed the (entirely justified) G12 tag, but neither removed all the copy-pasted material nor revdeleted the offending revisions in the history. Was there there some reason for that? Is there, for example, some reason to believe that the first five sources here are all suitably licenced? – if so, attribution would be required, as usual. Anyway, I've listed it at WP:CP to be sorted out. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New message from TheLongTone

Hello, DESiegel. You have new messages at [[User talk:TheLongTone#Tagging of Alaska Department of Revenue – Tax Division|TheLongTone's talk page]].
Message added 13:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TheLongTone (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, DESiegel. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC). 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.

Interstellarity (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Advice for newbie

I tried making a contribution to the Cerrolow 136 page about a month ago and it got immediately shot down. You had some commentary on the talk page there that I responded to but I'm not sure I typed it in correctly that people can see. I'm hesitant to make any further attempts at the page because it seems I broke some unknown rules. Can you advise? Calculuschild (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't violate any rule, Calculuschild but neither did Flyer22 Reborn a rather experienced editor, who reverted your change to Cerrolow 136. That page now redirects to Wood's metal#Related alloys. The version you created can be seen here but will not be visible to anyone who does not know to go looking for it. The talk page Talk:Cerrolow 136 has not been redirected and is still visible, but since it is now the talk page ofd a redirect, it is not likely to be often visited, and the discussion has, for the moment, died away.

There is no question that Cerrolow 136 exists, and I presume that the version of the article about it that you creates is accurate, although in copying content from another Wikipedia article the references were not copied properly. The question, not really answered in the discussion that took place on Talk:Cerrolow 136 , is whether the alloy is notable and a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article. Redirecting to a related page is one standard way in which a real but not separately notable topic can be dealt with. To have a separate article, there should usually be several (generally at least 3) independent published reliable sources which discuss the topic in some detail. The catalogs of vendors of the alloy would not be considered independent, and even if they were, probably do not discuss the alloy in enough detail. If there are books or technical articles or publications which do include such detailed discussion of the alloy, then a separate page would probably be appropriate. Otherwise not. Do you know of several such publications, Calculuschild?

If the alloy is not a notable topic on its own, it could be covered in greater detail in the article on Wood's metal, or in Cerrosafe, or in Low-melting fusible alloys, or in Fusible_alloy.

But the question is where and how to hold a discussion on whether Cerrolow 136 is notable, and where and how to cover it. The previous discussion on Talk:Cerrolow 136 could be continued, but it will probably not attract many editors. Discussion could take place on the talk page of any of the articles I linked in the previous paragraph, but please not more than one of them.

Alternativly, you could build a replacement draft at Draft:Cerrolow 136, and give justification at Draft talk:Cerrolow 136. If this gets to a sufficiently developed state, I could move it to the article mainspace and do a history merge. Do consider the reasons given by Flyer22 Reborn in the discussion on Talk:Cerrolow 136 as to why a separate article might not be the best solution. If you want to proceed with a draft, let me know and I will help with reference formatting as my available time permits.

Is all that clear, or do you have further questions? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just one further question which I would like clarified: If I stumbled upon data for another one of these alloys that happens to have no practical commercial use (maybe someone would call it "not notable...?") is there a convention to still provide the data we do have? For example it is known that gallium-aluminum alloys are extremely brittle and generally useless, but it is an important concept when dealing with these alloys and a fascinating phenomenon. Another alloy might be less interesting, but while we have it's properties why not provide them in a public location? I see the existence of these other tables of materials within the Wood's metal page, but fitting everything in a reasonable page size limits the amount of detail we can go into on each material it seems. If I am looking for a concise collection of data about similar metals, but Wikipedia only has room for a column that shows "melt point", I am forced to search elsewhere. Unfortunately these other material properties are scattered in small bits or buried deep in technical documents. Now I have done that work and collected all those datapoints, and would like to place it in a public location for others who may need that data in the future. Perhaps there is not enough of "note" for a full article, but there has got to be a better way to collect and share the data than just put its name in a list with no other information. Calculuschild (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calculuschild there are several interrelated answers to your question. I will try to split them out so that they are clear. Please ask further if it turns out that they are not.

"Notability" and "commercial value" have very little to do with one another. If an alloy is of academic or technical interest, and reliable sources have written about it, it is quite likely to be notable, even if it has no commercial use whatever. On the other hand, if an alloy has net sales of millions of dollars per year, but no one beyond its manufactu5rars has written about it extensively, it is probably not notable/
Notability is the prime criterion as to whether thee should be a separate article about a subject/topic. Only notable topics should normally have articles, and sometimes not all of those (some topics that could be separated are better handled jointly, this is a judgement call.) However once there is an article on a topic, separate pieces of information do not need to be notable to be included, they merely need to be relevant, non-trivial, and verifiable. For example, if Low-melting fusible alloys is a valid topic, additional information about any relevant alloy can be added if it is non-trivial and verifiable.
Wikipedia articles are not limited to the kind of information already present. If there is a table of properties, but it does not include, say tensile strengths or hardness info, columns for those an be added, unless editors decide that the info is unwanted. There are various ways to get more info into a table. Tables can be made scrolling, for example. Don't worry too much about the presentation. On the other hand, we do want to avoid information overload. There might well be hundreds of properties about each alloy that could be listed and sourced, but most would be only of niche interest. Wikipedia is not intended to replace a source like the CRC handbook, it is intended to summarize key information from such sources. Remember that Wikipedia articles are usually aimed primarily at non-technical or semi-technical readers -- they do not aim to substitute for technical references of value largely to specialists.
There is no rule demanding that all such information be omitted, nor that all verifiable information be included. For some areas we have made consistent decisions on what info to include: for example, we usually do not include the street addresses of organizations, not the prices of products. Instead we cite and often link to sources that provide this level of detail. And there can be exceptions, even to such well established choices. For the properties of alloys, I do not think there is any well established list of what to include and what to leave out. It would be a matter for discussion by editors on the talk page of the article involved. But there is no harm in boldly adding such information, and then if anyone reverts, starting a discussion as described in the often quoted essay bold, revert, discuss. You must be prepared for reverts when editing Wikipedia. A revert need not end the matter. often it leads to a productive discussion and was really just the start of a change of direction on some topic.

I hope that this is helpful. Feel free to ask further questions. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still around :)

Hey DES. Apologies for not responding to your question at the Teahouse, but the last few weeks have been frantic to say the least. In answer to your question at the Teahouse, I plan to trawl through the Web and construct something similar to the season preview section on the West Ham 2012/2013 season page. It could take a while though. I hope the year has treated you well so far. LampGenie01 (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from you, LampGenie. I have bene a bit busy off-line, but doing well. Is ther any way in whih IO can help with you plan? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Vita Kin

Hi, DESiegel! I'm editing the article Draft: Vita Kin, I'm trying to improve it, because I think this topic is significant. I added new links to The Guardian and Vogue and new data to the biography. Can you move the page to Vita Kin? I will be grateful to you :) 192.71.166.25 (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VPN blocked. This is likely Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Çelebicihan trying to socially engineer you into moving their spam into mainspace. MER-C 09:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care who created it, MER-C I did note the SPI. I did some copy-editing, and removed a little puffery. It doesn't look like spam so far. If the refs don't check out, I won't be moving it to mainspace. If they do, and seem to demonstrate notability, I will. Before your note I might have just let this drop, it is now much higher on my priority list. Telling me not to work on something because it was created by a sock is one of the better ways to motivate me to work on it. I'm not sure if I'll have time to look at it tomorrow, but I now think I'll put it in front of collecting evidence for the RAHaworth arbcom case. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 09:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DESiegel, the article was rejected again because the user was blocked. Again, we didn’t look at the text of the article and again the biased result. Can you please look at this? Thanks! 80.52.193.190 (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Chukwunonso Ezekwueche -- revised version

Hi, on this page I have changed all the sources that had been previously used except his university degree, and would like your opinion on the current lot of sources. Thanks in advance, regards, Tycheana (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tycheana. The cited sources in Draft:Chukwunonso Ezekwueche are significantly improved. None seem to be interviews, and all look to be independent (except the thesis, which is fine for the purpose of showing his degree), and I see no reason to think that they are not reliable, although I am not very knowledgeable about fashion sources, let alone Nigerian or African fashion. My remaining issue is with the depth of coverage. The KuulPeeps source has only a single paragraph about Ezekwueche, and the others are not much longer. I would prefer a source with more detailed coverage, or failing that a couple of additional sources with coverage comparable to the already cited ones. This is probably right on the border for notability. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Tycheana, when you mention an article or draft on someone else's talk page, or at the Teahouse or help desk, or at any notice board, please include a wiki-link to the article or draft (as I did above). It makes it much easier for the person you are talking to to find the article, and it provides a useful backlink from the article to the discussion, so that one can later find all the places it was discussed. Thank you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DESiegel, thanks for taking a look. Kuulpeeps is a slideshow wherein they have discussed about 5 influencers in short. Will this link qualify as a reliable source - https://businessday.ng/life-arts/article/ezekwueche-nigerian-born-fashion-influencer-carves-a-niche-in-canada/ - I have refrained from using it so far since there is one paragraph towards the bottom which is spoken by the subject, so not really sure if it would qualify as a source. And duly noted about mentioning the link, will surely follow this guideline going ahead. Thanks again, regards, Tycheana (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Tycheana. I think that businessday.ng article is not ideal. I suspect it is reliable, but I'm not so sure about its independance. If it were just "one paragraph near the bottom" it wouldn't be a problem, but it looks to me as if every paragraph after the fist two contains either a direct quote, or an indirect quote such as Ezekwueche believes his business strategy is sustainable and unique because it appeals to everyone, both young and old. He noted that nobody wants to spend thousands of dollars on a suit, ... where most of the information is comming pretty directly from Ezekwueche and not from the reporters. An articlke of similar length (or even not quite as long) which does not do as much quoting would be better if one is available. Still that one is probably better than nothing, there is some content in the reporter's voice.

Oh, FYI, I changed the section title so it would be unique on this page, and not have me jumping from the history to the previous discussion last fall about this draft. It is usually more convenient not to have two different sections on a page, exp a talk page, with the same section title, or the software treats linked to either as going to the first of them. No big problem. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DESiegel, I thought as much and that is why did not use it as a reference. Even though the publication is well-known, this particular article sounds distinctly promotional. So as of now its just the current list of sources. Also noted the change in the section title, and will bear in mind going ahead. Thanks for all the guidance, regards, Tycheana (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability follow up

Dear David: I don't know if you saw my question about our improvements to Draft:Allen Estrin at: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2019_December_11#22:05:14,_11_December_2019_review_of_submission_by_DougHill; perhaps it belonged at Draft talk:Allen Estrin. If you are able to take a look, please let me know so I can tell you which of the new sources speak to notabiliy. (Some just support facts.) Thanks for all your help. DougHill (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, DougHill I did see that, but failed to follow up. Please indicate the three or four strongest currently cited sources for notability, in your view, and also mention if they were in the article at the time of the AfD. If any were, please add to the list until there are three our four that were not, all of which you think speak to notability. I will try to review once I have your response, say within 48 hrs if at all possible. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've posted the sources at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2019_December_11#22:05:14,_11_December_2019_review_of_submission_by_DougHill where our discussion is. DougHill (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Estrin's novel now has 3 independent reviews, giving it the "three essential sources". (I only listed one of those reviews as a new source as you requested.) It must be possible for a book to be notable when its author isn't, but I don't think that's the case here. DougHill (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Malabar Farm State Park

DES: On the Malabar Farm State Park page, the Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources don't want the truth about their incompetent running of the State Park. They are using their internet service (identified by their IP address of Ohio Dept. of Administrative Services which provides internet for all Ohio state agencies) to repeatedly remove a couple points about the barn their inept manager was implicated in destroying by fire & the health hazard of the Inn spring which they are under order to correct by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.

The site looks like a sterile travel brochure written by ODNR rather than containing pertinent information about Malabar Farm.

I am "Malabar Facts". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malabar Facts (talk • contribs) 21:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All that may be true, Malabar Facts. But your previous edits to Malabar Farm State Park and Louis Bromfield involved adding significant outsourced content, violation of the neutral point of view, edit warring to retain the unsourced content, and marking significant changes as MINOR|minor edits, which add up to Disruptive editing. And that is why I warned you on nyour user talk page not to persist in those kinds of edits. Note I am referrign here to your edits prior to my warning [here] on 15 Jan 2020. I have not yet reviewed any edits you made subsequent to that. Note that Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. Content in articles should be factual and verifible, and when controversial or potentially so, should normally be supported by citations to reliable sources. This was not true of your earlier edits -- I hope it is true of your more recent edits. Please take due note of this. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DES: I'll add copies of the agency reports I cited. People can make up their own minds Tell me how. I don't believe PDF's can be added?

But there is enverified information throughout the Malabar Farm page and it is a travel brochure written by the Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources.

Malabar Facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malabar Facts (talk • contribs) 23:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Malabar Facts, If there is a publicly available link to the report, please post the link. If not, and you have a scan, you can email it to me using Special:EmailUser/DESiegel. Please join the discussion on Talk:Malabar Farm State Park . Please do not attempt to edit in the content until it has been discussed there. And if you are the user Bromfield's Conscience, please abandon that username at once. See WP:SOCK for the relevant policy. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please do not post in sections about totally different topics, thank you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh if there are unverified statements in the article, Malabar Facts, please mark them with the template {{cn}} adding {{cn|date=January 2020}} just after an unverified statement. This is the 'citaiton needed" tmeplate. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 on the run

Yesterday he reverted evidence concerning himself [10]. He issued the contributor with a {checkuserblock}. This is an IPv6, which changes every day. I don't think he ran checkuser (what would be the point?) but if he did he wouldn't have turned up any information which was not already publicly known. Twelve minutes later he reverts more evidence concerning himself [11]. He then protects the page. Naughty boy - the Committee has emphatically told him not to do that.

If you're wondering why Thryduulf is being so cantankerous, well, at 11:15 on Monday he tried to trick the CheckUsers into mounting a "fishing expedition" and was knocked back. Ivanvector (20:07, 20 January) tried to justify his protection (he can't justify it - this meddling is absolutely forbidden - see above) by claiming it was to silence a "proxy-hopping anon". If he has evidence, let him produce it, otherwise that's a personal attack. Defying the Committee and making personal attacks are ingredients in a mix that leads to de-sysop or possible siteban (WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia). 87.75.42.131 (talk) 10:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RHaworth: Breaking news: Thryduulf has protected another case page. 87.75.42.131 (talk) 10:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And another. 87.75.42.131 (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Xeno has revision deleted a comment on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Proposed decision. He's also protected the page. Fairly obviously he hasn't sought the consensus of his colleagues, because

The Committee has never resolved to exclude IP evidence while a case is in progress (especially when it involves a party's interaction with IPs)

It's evidence, not "purely disruptive material" as Xeno alleges.

A quick glance at the content will confirm:

Examples have been given where Bbb23 has abused the use of the {checkuserblock} template and cut off talk page access to editors who ask him to explain his actions per WP:ADMINACCT, replying to the enquiry "Why have you not responded?" with the comment "I have now. Talk page access has been revoked." Examples have been given of administrators forging logs, including Future Perfect at Sunrise (who deleted a page created by Primefac page created by blocked user in defiance of block), Drmies (then an Arbitrator) [12], Ponyo and JJMC89 (deleting user talk pages page created by blocked user in defiance of block), Ian.thomson and Widr (deleting a single user talk page mass deletion of pages created by ----). None of these people has shown the slightest remorse. In fact FP@S, when asked to apologise to SilentResident, refused. 80.5.88.70 (talk) 07:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

User talk:Vote (Y) for Change was deleted by Ian.thomson at 12:04, 16 July 2016 "Mass deletion of pages added by Vote (Y) for Change".

At 19:33, 7 December 2016 Jayron32 protected a project page (Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion) Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked.

The page Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion was indefinitely protected by Amanda (DeltaQuad) at 09:05, 8 December 2016. The page Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/**** *** *** ****** was then created by Primefac. Support !votes were removed and the discussion was closed "Speedy keep" by Dennis Brown after fifteen minutes' discussion. The page was then deleted Page created by blocked user in defiance of block and salted by FP@S. The log entries were subsequently oversighted by Mr Nobody.

The actual text of the revisions of 02:39, 03:12, and 03:23, 16 December 2016 (including the edit summaries) may be found by scrolling down to the bottom of the link provided. At 04:28 and 04:29 Drmies revision deleted them Disclosure of non-public identifying or personal information. The text of the edit of 02:39 is given - the edits of 03:12 and 03:23 are restorations. The two names which appear in the text are the names of two editors. "F P" is an abbreviation of "Future Perfect at Sunrise".

Green Giant globally locked a number of accounts. On the morning of Harry and Meghan's wedding he was asked why, since none of them was causing any trouble. He refused to say.

The request to Bbb23 to explain his block per WP:ADMINACCT was made from User talk:86.152.81.16 at 14:48, 12 October 2018. The editor's query to Bbb23 asking why he had not responded was made at 17:16. The response, three minutes later, was

I have now. Talk page access has been revoked.

86.16.15.46 made an edit to the talk page of a Foundation Board Member at 01:02, 29 April 2019. Despite strict instructions not to remove content from Members' talk pages (because they want to read it) JJMC89 reverted at 01:04 and Mr Nobody suppressed. The content was transferred to User talk:86.16.15.46. The page was deleted by JJMC89 at 06:44, 18 May 2019 Created by a blocked user in violation of block. RHaworth will probably restore it if you ask him.

At 18:37, 2 June 2019 Favonian rangeblocked for one year 2A00:23C1:D100:1400:0:0:0:0/64. This suggests that content has been suppressed (there are no contributions recorded).

Ponyo (don't go - a thousand-mile long cold plume has just arrived and Drmies says that spring won't arrive without you) regularly deletes editors' user talk pages Creation by a blocked user in violation of block. An example may be seen in her deletion log at 22:57, 22 July 2019.

The refusal of FP@S to apologise to SilentResident may be seen at User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 32#Hey there.

Widr regularly deletes editors' user talk pages with log entry Mass deletion of pages added by ----. See for example at 06:06, 14 January 2020 and 17:49, 11 January 2020.

@Deb: @RHaworth: Thryduulf is playing the role of Donald Trump in this investigation. 86.172.112.5 (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Xeno has only been on the Committee for 24 days. If his intention is to continue to operate in non-collegial fashion and make mendacious log entries he should resign. If he's not prepared to do the honourable thing he should at least recuse. He appears to be a kid who plays "shoot-'em-up" games on the internet. His username was originally "Xenocidic". An editor said "it gives me the creeps" because it refers to "the deliberate and systematic extermination" of "either stranger or guest" (i.e. genocide).

I have just been watching a Holocaust video at the local library. Among the testimonies a Polish survivor recounted how his mother carried a piece of fabric to the assembly point. A malnourished Jewish boy came up and asked her to give him the fabric. She asked him why and he said "I want to kill myself". She handed it to him, he took it to an outhouse, tore it into strips and hanged himself. Holocaust Memorial Day is next Monday, the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.

Xeno's comment What tool do you need to unf**k it?" (16:27, 28 August 2009), linking to Kegel exercise (you learn something new here every day) led Durova to remark There's a minimal level of decorum for open public discourse and this falls well below the line during a discussion deploring his misogynistic attitude. His RfB bombed after Hammersoft commented (16:00, 4 September 2009):

Further, this editor arbitrarily makes up rules on the fly to block people whom he finds lacking.

and at 16:31:

According to Xeno, lack of editing in the mainspace is a criteria [sic] for being indefinitely banned from the project.

Of his last 150 edits, just two are to mainspace.

He also has a habit of hiding his lack of knowledge by giving misleading information (something he wrongly accuses @RHaworth: of doing). For example, 22 minutes after he told an editor I can't be arsed another editor asked him for advice on reporting alleged administrator abuse at pt:wp. While admitting "I don't speak the language at all" he then told the editor to post at pt:Wikipédia:Votações, claiming it is the local equivalent of ANI. In fact it's the local equivalent of RfC. The poor editor had to ask someone else (which (s)he did at 14:13, 20 May 2009). 92.10.235.150 (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RHaworth: I see Thryduulf is a regular at Penderel's Oak. 92.10.235.150 (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question about deleting redirects to make way for a page move

Hi DESiegel,

Since I'd been following Draft:Chris Duffey, the move and deletion log entries showed up in my Watchlist. I noted that JonathanX0X0, in his good faith patrolling, was able to move it from the Main: namespace to Draft: namespace by deleting and overwriting the redirect in the draft namespace. But, looking at his user group privileges, I'm only seeing him as "autoconfirmed." How is he able to do that? I thought you needed page mover privileges to do that?

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 17:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dmehus This is an exception. As it says in WP:MOVE#Moving over a redirect, If the new title exists but is a redirect to the old title with a single line in the page history, then you can rename the page. The most common case in which this applies is that of re-renaming a page back to its original name. ... It is the only way non-administrators can get entries in the deletion log. That exception applies to any auto-confirmed user. Otherwise an admin (or I think a File Mover) must do the move, or do a G6 deletion in advance to clear the way. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DESiegel, Ah, okay, so as an extendedconfirmed user, I guess that applies to me. I've never tried to move a page over a redirect as I've always just initiated a move discussion. In the case of Talk:Sirius XM Canada, which proposed to move SiriusXM Canada to Sirius XM Canada to remove the unnecessary camel case for consistency, could I have just made that move, or was it correct for me to discuss it? Doug Mehus T·C 18:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it wouldn't have applied to me because there was more than one line at SiriusXM Canada (now former page name) in the edit history; however, I never checked the old redirect Sirius XM Canada (now current page name). If there was only one line in the edit history, I probably could've moved this. Otherwise, I wonder if I could've proposed the move as an uncontroversial technical request? In any case, it's been moved, thanks to Amakuru closing the discussion and completing the move. Doug Mehus T·C 18:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmehus: the question about whether it's OK to just make the move (or request it at WP:RM/TR) versus starting a full requested-move discussion is more to do with whether it's a controversial move or not, than with whether you're technically able to do it. That's really a matter of judgement though. Is anyone likely to challenge the move, or disagree with it? If so, start a discussion. If not, just move it. In the case of Sirius XM Canada, you probably could have made a fair case for uncontroversial, given that it matched the other move... although in the discussion someone did actually oppose the move, so it's not always an obvious decision. — Amakuru (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru, Thanks for clarifying. That's sort of the way I was feeling; it seemed like a justifiable non-controversial move, but it did garner some soft opposition from one editor, so, like you say, it's not always clear. That said, having done the discussion, at least now we have a record on the talkpage of the move so will be more difficult to challenge. One can always propose to move it back, but having had that discussion, they would likely need to initiate a new discussion. Doug Mehus T·C 21:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmehus: Exactly that. If you make a WP:BOLD move, because you think it's uncontroversial, and then it's challenged within the next few months after the move, someone can legitimately move it back and recommend that you start a discussion on the matter. Whereas if you put it through an RM and there's consensus to move (as there was here), then that immediately becomes the new stable title and another RM is required to move elsewhere. — Amakuru (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Dmehus, I absolutely agree with Amakuru here. The "rule" I quoted above has to do with when a given editor is technically able to do a given move. It does not answer whether the move should be done. When a move is clearly uncontroversial -- say there is a spellign error in a title, or a page has been draftified, and greatly improved, with the issues that lead to the move to drat all being fixed, any edito5r who is technically able may and quite possiblyt should do the move. If there is any serious question about the move being controversial or likely to be objected to in good faith, obtain consensus first via a move discussion, normally on the talk page of the article concerned (or on one of them with links from the others, if several articles are involved). I have on a number of occasions been asked to do a move as an admin because a redirect or dab page is in the way, but have declined because I felt advance consensus was needed. So it is not about permissions, it is about good judgement and consensus. If a move is uncontroversial, otr if consensus has been established to make it, any editor in good standing may make it if technically able, or ask an admin to help if admin rights are needed. In such a case the admin normally confirms consensus, or that the move is pretty clealry uncontroversial, and if so makes it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DESiegel and Amakuru,

Thank you to you both! Doug Mehus T·C 22:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Office actions/Log

Hi DESiegel,

Unless, of course, you'd like to express an opinion on the above MfD, I was wondering if you might like assess the consensus of that MfD? It's been open for 11 days now (4 days past the the 7 day mark), without a relisting. Relisting, of course, is certainly possible, but there does seem to be at least some degree of consensus forming based on the arguments provided. I feel as though a relisting may not be necessary in this case. It's the oldest business on the MfD docket currently.

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 22:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects for Sheila Gunn Reid and Christopher Wilson (reporter)

@DESiegel:

I had tagged the above redirects for RfD as not mentioned in the target article, Rebel News, following my closing a move discussion and attempting to update the backlinks. However, in so doing, I noticed these redirects were created by a banned sockpuppet account, User:VivaSlava. I'm not normally one who thinks everything of a sockpuppet/sockpuppet master account should be deleted, but these redirects had, in my view, no significant edits.

Glades12 removed the CSD tags on the premise that a previous diff had a single citation reference added to each. Personally, I view adding citations as minor edits, so I think this qualifies. Nevertheless, since they were created by the sockpuppet account, not the master account, my understanding is that they can be deleted regardless. Each had less than five to ten edits, give or take, and no meaningful content was ever added.

Can you clarify my thinking and/or confirm if CSD G5 was appropriate in this case?

Thanks,
--Doug Mehus T·C 15:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: you can ignore this, if you wish, DESiegel, as Rosguill was kind enough to answer my query at User talk:Rosguill#Redirects for Sheila Gunn Reid and Christopher Wilson (reporter). Doug Mehus T·C 17:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi DESiegel! You created a thread called Creating a new article at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What Katy Did

Previous discussion: Special:Permalink/937509203#Bbb23 on the run

One way of telling when an edit has been SUPPRESSED although the log says it has been revision deleted is to check the block log. 78.145.24.223 has no contributions recorded although Bradv blocked it for a week at 14:33, 17 January 2020 for alleged "Long-term abuse". If calling out corrupt Arbitrators is "long-term abuse" be Harvey Weinstein's guest.

At 17:00, 25 January 2020 the edit of 92.10.235.150, 13:25, 25 January to User talk:Berean Hunter was revision deleted. During the next 45 minutes somebody evidently panicked, because by 17:45 the edit was back on view and the revision deletion log had been suppressed. Again, at 11:35, 17 January 2020 Thryduulf blocked 82.69.5.58 for one week for ""Long-term abuse". Once again, a glance at the content shows that a place at Harvey Weinstein's table should be booked for him alongside Bradv. Read on for a transcript of 78.145.24.223's and 82.69.5.58's evidence.

It will be recalled that Katie slipped up in her revision deletion cover-up because she left in the edit history the information that Oxford editor 82.69.5.58 last edited at 10:45, 17 January 2020 and London editor 78.145.24.223 first edited at 11:34 - she alleges that both edits are by the same person. A transcript of 89.240.119.11's's evidence on the matter is given later. I note that 82.69.5.58 has now been re-allocated to Hastings, Sussex - that's almost as far from London as Oxford is.

This is all very crafty - the revision deletion log for Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Workshop has been doctored to show that only fourteen revisions were deleted - all 82.69.5.58's edits since last summer (including the crucial 10:45 one) have disappeared into thin air along with all edits of 78.145.24.223 (including the crucial 11:34 one). The block log is again the giveaway - 78.145.24.223 was blocked for one week by Bradv at 14:33, 17 January 2020, again for "Long-term abuse". Also sucked into the black hole is Thryduulf's reversion of 82.69.5.58 at 11:34 (Katie left in his reference to the IP), 78.145.24.223's reversion of Thryduulf at 11:36, and Thryduulf's reversion of 78.145.24.233 at 11:37 (again Katie left in his reference to the IP).

Here are the comments of 82.69.5.58:

Here Tony Ballioni destroys his own case. He confirms that a CU block involves private information unavailable to other administrators. Since the information that Ponni Concessao and Velanatti are the same person was publicly revealed there was no private information involved. His final sentence is correct but irrelevant. - 82.69.5.58 09:58, 17 January 2020

Why is this here? If Ballioni is insinuating that RHaworth has never read the blocking/deletion policy during his fifteen years he is talking baloney because he cannot know that. I can name a number of administrators who seem unaware of policy - for example JJMC89 and Ponyo who delete user talk pages "G5.Page created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block" and Ian.thomson and Widr who log the deletion of a single user talk page (and nothing else) as "G5.Mass deletion of pages created by ----." - 82.69.5.58 09:58, 17 January 2020

On the contrary, @RHaworth: followed policy to the letter, as evidenced by Bbb23's unblock when he awoke from his slumbers. - 82.69.5.58 09:58, 17 January 2020

Nonsense. The oversighters had shown themselves to be incompetent - directing the editor back to them would be sending him on a fool's errand, especially as Bbb23 himself had just said that complaints against the oversighters should be directed to ArbCom, who are the people who gave them the job and presumably can sack them. Rhaworth correctly described suppression as a process whereby persons who cannot be identified delete content which cannot be identified once it disappears. The bad faith towards competent administrators seems to be endemic - witness this extract from "Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Page 2":

One Wikipedian, a five year veteran iirc, recently tried to call [redacted] out on Wikipedia, to the Founder no less. By pointing out his disgraceful standards of conduct, specifically in how he communicates with others, he hoped to avoid another embarrassing BWilkins/DangerousPanda saga. For his trouble, he was of course rounded on and subjected to threats and intimidation. - 41.109.33.250 23:12, 26 May 2018

[redacted] served on the Committee. - 82.69.5.58 09:58, 17 January 2020

Now here are 78.145.24.223's comments:

The Committee has directed that evidence may be removed from case pages only by Arbitrators and clerks. - 78.145.24.223 11:44, 17 January 2020

Thryduulf's action is WP:INVOLVED tool abuse anyway as he has just demonstrated that he has a dog in this race. - 78.145.24.223 11:53, 17 January 2020

And even if didn't [sic] have a vested interest in the removal of evidence supportive of RHaworth, once he edited the page he became WP:INVOLVED to the extent that it would be tool abuse to then protect on his preferred version. - 78.145.24.223 12:09, 17 January 2020

Note that the one edit revision deleted by Katie from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Workshop at 15:31. 17 January 2020 and the five edits she revision deleted at 16:12 (all good faith edits) include comments by registered editors who were not blocked for participating. She nevertheless logged all of them as bad faith comments coming from alleged socks of Flow234.

really Here's the report from 89.240.119.11:

Another cause for concern is the revision deletions carried out yesterday by KrakatoaKatie. In a surprising move she has removed all the IP numbers - she has never done this before except one occasion when her log entry was Self-disclosure by apparent minor. However, she seems to have slipped up. A glance at the diff for 11:34, 17 January 2020 reveals that the sequence of edits ending at 10:45 was performed by 82.69.5.58, which geolocates to Oxford. Although clicking on the first diff brings up the message "one or both revisions has been removed from the public archives" (as opposed to "one or both revisions has been suppressed") the contribution record for this IP shows no edits since 17 June 2019, which means they were SUPPRESSED. Again, the edit of 11:36, 17 January is by 78.145.24.223, which geolocates to Hackney, London E2. Again, it has no edits recorded, which means they have been SUPPRESSED, notwithstanding the statement that they haven't.

Following up on this, we see that the time interval between the last edit from Oxford and the first edit from London is 49 minutes. Even an express train takes longer than that to travel between the two centres, but in her deletion log Katie claims both edits were made by the same person! The name she gives is "VXFC". There is indeed an editor registered under that name, but no contributions are recorded - hardly an indicator of "Long-term abuse", as entered by Katie in her log. "VXFC" is marked as a sockpuppet of "Flow234". Another sockpuppet of Flow234 is "Long term abuse". This account has one edit, linking "Honda Fit" and "Honda HR-V" to "Economy car". The information is still in the article, so irrespective of the editor's opinion of himself Katie's allegation is unfounded.

The evidence has conveniently been suppressed by the invisible man, so the Community is not in a position to audit Katie's claim, but there is one powerful indicator that it is false. The first of the edits which she hid from Community scrutiny was made at 10:06 on Wednesday, 15 January. Is it really feasible that an edit could hang around for 54 hours if it was "purely disruptive material" as Katie claims?

Even worse is that the original reversions were made by senior administrators and a bureaucrat (Xeno) who saw nothing in the content requiring revision deletion. It's not for Katie to come around 54 hours later and hide evidence in an Arbitration case favourable to a party here who faces de-sysop if the case against him @RHaworth: is proved. - 89.240.119.11 - 15:58, 18 January 2020

Adverting to Xeno's apparent glorification of genocide, noted by 92.10.235.150, those able to (sorry for the late notice) may wish to attend

Never Again! Holocaust Memorial Day Public Meeting and film

Sunday 26 January 2-5 pm St Paul's Church

182 Stoke Newington Road N16 7UY

plus a report from the visit to Auschwitz.

@BrownHairedGirl: @RHaworth: 86.175.2.36 (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Symply Tacha again

The draft for Symply Tacha was created again in February 5. Can you check whether this is the same as the previous one and if so, should it be CSD G4? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

possible adoption

hi. I would be interested in being adopted by you, under the adopt-a-user program. could you please let me know how to set that up? I really appreciate any help. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

how are things?

I noticed your talk page seems to have gone quiet? hope things are going well. --Sm8900 (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

re {{Cquote}}

The {{Cquote}} RfC was closed a few days ago (it is here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Use of Large Quotes in article space, and the Cquote template). The close was to implement option 1A, which is

Replace {{cquote}} with the code from {{cquote/sandbox1}}, with results that can be seen at Template:Cquote/testcases1. This would have the effect of converting {{cquote}} into {{quote}} in all mainspace uses, all at once. Make similar changes in {{rquote}}.

Since you're the RfC initiator, advocated for that change, and have the chops, I'd suggest you make the required changes. (If for whatever reason you can't or don't want to, fine, just let me know so I can do it myself.) Thanks for the RfC... for my part, its a win when the community clearly expresses a choice and the RfC is closed properly and the change is implemented. Herostratus (talk) 06:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some bubble tea for you!

Welcome back, kind sir! You were missed. How have you been? Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I got rather busy at work and in offline life, having recently moved to a different house. I am well, staying at home, and not ill with the virus. Thanks, Usedtobecool. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - it's nice to see your contributions at the Teahouse again. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A brownie for you!

THANKS FOR THE HELP ANDREWHISTORY HISTORIAN (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome template

Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates#‎RfC on welcome template standardisation.--Moxy 🍁 11:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi DESiegel! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Picture edits, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! K123455 (talk) 02:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

I greatly appreciate your help deleting the article that I created by mistake today. I am sorry for this error. It was meant for a project page and I made a typo. Kind regards, JenOttawa (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DESiegel. Thanks for the correction and I apologize for the material I added which was not recommended. I am relatively new here, however, I desire to learn how to become a good Editor in Wikipedia. Would you please be my Mentor? Thank you. Habelgmsa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Habelgmsa (talk • contribs) 19:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel

Hi, can you revdel this edit which includes an individual's full name, city and postal code? Thanks, Hillelfrei ^talk 19:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up on your comments re. Draft on Scantrust

Hi DESiegel, Thanks again for your thorough comments and encouraging words in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Can_someone_help_me_assess_whether_the_sources_do_establish_notability_of_my_draft_article? , regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Scantrust. I have now finished editing the draft while taking into account your feedback. Some quick comments regarding your feedback: on ref 1, I made a mistake and was actually section 10.3.2, and yes there is no page numbering but it is the entire section ; ref 1,2,5,6: I added a quote. Regarding the marketing tone, I must say that I struggled with how to lower it, since the 1st paragraph is mostly paraphrasing the elements found in the sources, which I understand is the recommended approach. But certainly, another editor would help here.

In this draft, I added a few sources to improve notability assessment. May I ask for your opinion on whether these are useful to address the comment made by the reviewer? Some comments on the added sources:

In consideration of your comment “A professional review of thither products would be particularly helpful”, I added ref 2 (Scantrust Case Study) and ref 9 (Nexans..). Are these sources helpful?
Ref 4 (Chain business insight) and Ref 6 (Supply chain dive) seem, in my opinion, to qualify as secondary sources. In the two cases the journalists have analyzed Scantrust in the context of its impact on supply chains
Ref 8 (rts.ch) is a television documentary which was aired on Swiss National TV, on the topic of counterfeiting. The topic is covered from different sides and Scantrust technology is featured. There is an interview, which I understand is a primary source. However there is also the commentary of the journalist, as well as a printer who comments on how the technology can be used. I am not sure if these can qualify as secondary sources, and how a link to a TV documentary is perceived on Wikipedia?
Ref 10 (phys.org): Even though there is a quote, the article provides commentary and does not appear to be from the viewpoint of the company
Ref 13 quotes the company’s CEO but also provides commentary and analysis. It seems to me as being balanced in that it talks also about the security risks with the technology
Ref 14: some quotes but some commentary as well
There are a number of other sources that are newspaper article for which a company representative has been interviewed, but I'd say that there is also commentary from the journalist. I am not sure if these could count, in part, as secondary source? In any case, I grouped them in the History section, to support facts about the company rather than to establish notability.

Considering the comments I received on the initial draft, do you think it would be ok to now resubmit the article?

By the way, I thought it made more sense to post this message on your talk page, do let me know if it would be more appropriate to post this message in the Teahouse. Thanks again for your help! Factfox (talk) 14:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Factfox Thank you for your continued work on this draft, and for notifying me about it. Let me respond to the items you mentioned above.

The problem with ref 2 (Scantrust Case Study) and ref 9 (Nexans..) is that neither is independent.

Hyperledger. supplies technology that Scantrust is using, and reviews ScanTrust largely in terms of how its tech is used. That means it is essentially writing about itself and its own work, and has an inherent bias to show how wonderful its work is.
Nexans uses the Scantrust tech to identify its products, and makes the use of that tech a selling point. It therefore has an inherent interest in depicting that tech in as positive a light as it can.
A review by a truly independent source would be much more valuable than either of these. Indeed had these two sources been by fully independent organizations, I think that would have fully established notability. In general any comment by a party with a business relationship with ScanTrust will not count as fully independent.

Ref 4 (Chain business insight) and Ref 6 (Supply chain dive) look like good independent and reliable sources, and go a long way to establishing notability.
For Ref 8 (rts.ch), please use {{Cite AV media}} instead of {{cite web}} to cite published TV or video (or audio) recoierdings. The time withing the presentation serves to indicate the exact place where the relevant information may be found, much as the page number does in a printed source. TV documentaries are held to the same standards as newspapers or magazines or online news sites: they must be independent and have fact-checking and editorial control so that they are reliable. Such sources are perfectly acceptable.
Ref 10 (phys.org) The mere presence of a quote does not make this an interview and therefore not independent. In a classic interview, all the meaningful content comes from the subject, and is therefore the subject talking about him- or herself. That is not independent. An article with one or a few quotes but significant independent reporting is perfectly acceptable. The exact line between the two is a judgement call.
Ref 13 VentureBeat strikes me as perhaps being on the wrong side of that line. It has a number of quoted from the CEO; ,and describes the CEO's thinking and purpose in a way that could only come from him directly or indirectly. It makes a number of statements without giving any sources or describing any investigation or review process, and they are of a kind likely to be found in a press release from ScanTrust. If this is, as I suspect, a mere rehashing of a PR combined with an interview, it is not independent and does not help with notability. However, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 105#VentureBeat and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 91#Venturebeat.com, aumag.org, uscops.com, and positivelyaware.com both found VB to be reliable, and VentureBeat has some positive things to say about VB. I would leave it in but not depend on it overmuch. But keep those links handy in case it is later challenged at an AfD.
Ref 14 Ledger Insights also includes a lot of quotes from the CEO or the company, and a lot of info that seems to be derived from compoany statements although not directly quoted. But it also seems to have a fair amount of independent reporting. I would probably count this as half a source for notability purposes

And now some formatting issues.

Please give article titles in Title Case (Inital caps except for minor words such as "of" Do not use ALL caps even if the source does. See Help:Citation Style 1#Titles and chapters which says: Use title case unless the cited source covers a scientific, legal or other technical topic and sentence case is the predominant style in journals on that topic. Use either title case or sentence case consistently throughout the article. Do not omit a leading "The" from the title. Subtitles are typically separated from titles with ": " though " – " is also used. As with trademarks, Wikipedia does not attempt to emulate any stylistic flourishes used by the cited source's publisher, such as ALL-CAPS, all-lower-case, Small Caps, etc.; use either standard title case or sentence case consistently. This means a correction of Ref 4.
If a source is paginated, as many PDFs are, give the exact page number or numbers where the info being cited is to be found, please.
Please give a publication date with |date= or at least a year with |year= whenever these are known for a given source. Mostly you already do this.
If the source is not well known, consider listing the publisher with |publisher=. If the name of the publisher is essentially the same as the name of the publication, this adds nothing, so don't bother.
If a source is not in English, please consider using |trans-title= to give a translated (English) version of the title.
Do not give the name of the company publishing a source as the author, as you did in Ref 28. Instead use |publisher=.
Please refer to Wikipedia articles and pages with a wiki-link using double-square brackets, not a URL.

Overall, this looks significantly improved to me. After you make the formatting corrections above, I would re-submit this. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again DESiegel, thank you very much again for your guidance! I followed on all your instructions and just submitted the article. This has been an incredibly instructive experience. I am very grateful that you took the time to look through the reference, to offer me specific feedback. I suspected as much for the Nexans/Hyperledger references, and your confirmation confirmed my hypothesis on how such references are treated (I kept them nevertheless). I will let you know the outcome. Have a great day, Factfox (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DESiegel, I just want to let you know that the article has been accepted. Thanks again for your help! I will continue contributing to Wikipedia, there is a number of new articles that I would like to create. Factfox (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Noshing with Nina Show

DESiegel where is the text that was written for the article on "The Noshing with Nina Show" that you deleted? Where can I find it? Nina07011960 (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nina07011960 The text of deleted items is normally visible only to administrators. That is what "deleted" means here. If the creator of a page asks for a copy of the text, it may be provided, usually by email, but is not always. Copyright violations are never provided, nor are attack or defamation pages. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DESCan you send me the email? Nina07011960 (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nina07011960 Sent. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DES I didn't receive it. Which address did you send it to? Nina07011960 (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nina07011960 I sent it to whatever email address you registered with Wikipedia, via the "email this user" function, which is the only way i send such texts. I do not know and have no way to know what address that might be. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm AaqibAnjum. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Vicky Manhas, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 23:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage info

I’m having trouble knowing if I have reached 331dot (?) or not. I want to thank him for helping restore my husband’s wiki page. We are looking for proof of marriage but we did not announce it public ally. Would a marriage certificate work? Where would I send it? I find wading through all this confusing, my tech knowledge is no where near adequate. I admire you for yours. K123455 K123455 (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, K123455. As it happens, I write software for a living, and have for many years, so I really ought to have some knowledge of tech. Like anything else, it can be learned if one takes the time, but some find it easier than others.

No a marriage certificate woul;d not be of any use, so do not bother to try to send it anywhere. Only published sources can be accepted by Wikipedia. However, if your husband has, or creates, a personal web page or site (they are not hard to do in a basic form, nor expensive), and mentions his marriage(s) on that, that would be a published source which couold be cited here. It wouldn't do for anything controversial or extraordinary, but for a routine fact such as a marriage or place of birth, it would be just fine.

I am pinging the editor 331dot, so that s/he knows of your thanks. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi DESiegel, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

treehouse query

hello there!. I see that you pinged me in the treehouse because of a user complaining about my edit revert. do you want me to talk to the user or should I wait tell the user reaches me in the articles talk page. sorry I am just confused because I never had a user disagreeing with my edit revert in the treehouse. many thanks Trains2050 (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trains2050, the TEAhouse is supposed to be a relatively friendly place for new editors to ask questions about editing. We often get people there asking when an edit was reverted, or a page tagged for deletion, or a draft declined. I pinged you because I wanted you to know that the user had raised the issue, and be able to read the advice given to the user. (BTW, I think your revert was perfectly proper.) If you want to, you could 1) join the Teahouse discussion; 2) open a thread on the user's talk page; 3) open a thread on the article talk page and ping the user; or 4) wait for the user to open a thread on the article talk page. Since the user may not understand how to ping you, you can't count on an automated notification unless you have the page watched. If it were me, i would probably incline to 3 unless I was too busy, but any of those would be fine, you need not reach out, but it might be helpful form a new user to be shown how a proper article talk page discussion works. IIRC Wallace at least flirted with socialism, but was not a "Fringe" politician for the time, but it is an area of history I know little about. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In some ways it might have been better to call the forum the treehouse, but the idea was to suggest a calm and peaceful sort of place, but a serious one, i understand. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Fengqi You

Hi, DES! Please see my edit summary here: the person has a named professorship in the USA, which – rightly or wrongly – means that he is notable by our standards. His Scholar citations and h-index also suggest that he is notable. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Justlettersandnumbers. Yes that does indicate notability, but the draft doesn't currently say that. Perhaps it was removed as part of the copyvio text. By the way, do you have any experience with dealing with an AfC "Rejected" tag on a draft about a probably notable person, such as Fengqi You is. The copyvios justified the rejection perhaps, but now that they have been removed and revdel'd this shouold not, IMO be marked as rejected. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen it before, and I think it's probably a mistake – my perception is that the "Reject" button is for topics that shouldn't have a page here, and not for fixable problems in the existing version. I started a discussion here, but it hasn't yet borne any fruit. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Striking talk page comments

I'm don't think that what you wrote here is accurate. While modifying an editor's post is not allowed, I don't think there's anything in our policies against striking sock comments from one's own talk page.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 02:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further, this is covered at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments "Comments made by a sock with no replies may simply be removed with an appropriate edit summary. If comments are part of an active discussion, they should be struck instead of removed, along with a short explanation following the stricken text or at the bottom of the thread.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 02:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ghasidas

There have been no new responses on Talk:Ghasidas for 21 days. I think it's time to assess the consensus, close the discussion. It requires a technical page move and a history merge. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CallMeKevin

Hi, I saw you A7'd CallMeKevin(Youtuber) a few days ago. I just wanted to let you know that there's a duplicate page at CallMeKevin(YouTuber), which should be A7'd as well. It's been BLPPRODded, but I feel that we shouldn't let it stick around for much longer, since it is clearly not notable and there are major BLP issues with some of the material. Spicy (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr DEsiegel

I am sad that some editors have chosen to take as personal everything on wikipedia, thereby abusing their authority and tools. They have no respect for the community and pioneers, they bite newcomers using good faith as a disguise. The page you approved Tolu' A Akinyemi has been nominated for speedy deletion by an editor who clearly has a COI with the other nominator whom you have previously cautioned. Sir it is sad. I am sad. I'm being intimidated.Olatunde Brain (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Olatunde Brain, You don't seem very intimidated. Nor does my AfC approval make the Tolu' A Akinyemi article forever immune to deletion, even to speedy deletion. It was deleted by consensus at an AfD, and that consensus was upheld at a Deletion review, although with significant dissent. Changes were made to address the issues raised at the AfD, but the charges were not as large as they most often are when a deleted article is successfully recreated. Editors, such as Versace1608 might well believe in good faith that the article does not belong on Wikipedia without there being anything personal about the matter.

I believe that notability is sufficiently established, or I would not have approved the article at AfC, but I mam only one editor, and have no special power over the views of other editors.

Hobit has removed the speedy deletion tag from the article. If you (or Brain7days needs to discuss the status of the article again, please do so on the merits of the article, not by challenging the motives of those who you disagree with. That is a very bad habit, and often puts off legitimate experienced editors who might otherwise have agreed with you. Please remember this in future. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noted Thank you.Olatunde Brain (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Schützenverein Lohne

Greetings DESiegel, i write to you cause you are listed as co-op mentor. I write mostly in the german wiki and only a little bit in the english one. I am planing to translate the article Schützenverein Lohne. My question is: will these articel pass the notability test (german Relevanztest) or will it be deleted. (Maby you can recommend a german speaking writer in the en-wiki for easyer communication). Thanks in advance --Tronje07 (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance, Please

Hey DES thank you for your help with Draft:Kyle_McMahon

I found a pretty in-depth piece on him from May that is part written research and part interview. I'd like to include it in the draft, but I don't want to mess up any of the editors work. I put it in the talk page of Draft:Kyle_McMahon

Any assistance would be amazing. Thank you so much.

FrankNSteinJr (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FrankNSteinJr. Don't worry too much about "messing things up" it is always easy to put things back they way they were at any point that a draft was saved -- the change history is retained that gives full details of every change. So if you think the source might help.y adding it to the draft. A word of warning, however. many interviews are just the reporter asking short questions and the subject giving long answers. Nothing wrong with that, but pretty much all the significant detail is in the subject's words, so such a source is not co9nsidered independent and does not count toward's notability. Pn the o0thre hand, if the reporter adds significant analysis or comment, so that much of the ninfo is in the reporter's words, thar is different. That kind of source may count towards notability DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK excellent. I will just use the reporters analysis. Thank you so much!

FrankNSteinJr (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowblade08 et al

Hello! I'm reticent to start an SPI on a bunch of kids (Shadowblade, Danihart, Hiumyi), but I have the sense that these accounts are one and the same and are just here to troll us. I don't think it could be any clearer that the current one in question is not supposed to edit.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have just blocked the 2nd shadowblade account, ThatMontrealIP. I don't think Hiumyi is the same person, just on style, although they may know each other on social sites. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And no, I am not here to troll.

No, I do not shodowblade at all on social media sites.

Hamuyi (talk) 05:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About the user, shodowblade86.2

Wow, you was serious, and (reported him or) blocked him. I didn't know you are not supposed to get on Wikipedia at all, if you get blocked. That actually good info. Thank you, the person who helps and learns,

Hamuyi (talk) 04:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Hamuyi I was very serious. I don't block all that much -- only some 287 blocks in more than 10 years -- but I do not joke about it, nor do most admins in my experience. Block evasion is simply not OK. I gave more warnings than normal.

Ans while we are talking, please remember to welcome Teahyouse users when yoiu answer a question, and please read and observe WP:BITE. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DES. You are aware that the blocked User:Shadowblade08 made a new account 12 hours ago: User:Shadowblade08.2, right? From his Talk page, he now seems to expect that all will be forgiven if he promises not to be disruptive.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am aware, Quisqualis. I was in the course of blocking that account when anothe admin did so fist. I ahve extended the block o the original Shadowblade08 account as well, as is common in cases of block evasion. Unblock requests will be addressed on the user's talk page. Socks (alternate accounts cresated to evade a block) are rarely unblocked. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

fyi

PLS SEE Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Introduction page.

Disambiguation link notification for June 22

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The constructive help you gave on my draft

I really appreciate you taking the time to look at the notability and citations I had used for the draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Ruan_Galdino

I understand now that some of these articles are not so independent. Some of the articles that do mention Galdino are only one sentence statements. I now understand these two issues and will be more aware of them as I continue my writings, Thank you.

My questions before I edit the draft is as follows

1.) The Mail and Guardian article I had used https://mg.co.za/article/2018-09-28-00-slice-of-life-im-a-neguinho-who-is-really-good/ You had said it was written by Galdino himself which in hindsight I see and agree with you. Hypothetically, what would have needed to be different with the article in order for it to have been a valid cite? Imagining for a moment that the information within the article was roughly the same as when written by the Galdino and in the hypothetical scenario where the article could be deemed valid? Who would have needed to be the speaker in that articles for it t have been deemed credible?

2.) "About Us". Joburg Ballet. 2018-07-09. Retrieved 2020-06-21

I have noticed that other professional dancers have used similar "about Us pages" when citing in Wikipedia examples. To mention a few : "Vadim Muntagirov". Royal Opera House used in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vadim_Muntagirov "Gonzalo Garcia". New York City Ballet used in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzalo_Garcia_(dancer) "Levin Award" used https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carla_K%C3%B6rbes These examples show the information found on sites similar to the Joburg Ballet There are however many others that do the same. ( I hope i have linked these articles correctly, if not forgive me)

I would like to clarify the question as to why the about of Joburg Ballet is not independent and how these other articles are using similar non-independent pages are seen as possibly independent? I have possibly overlooked something in this regard but thought it wise to clarify for my own understanding. Thank you

I hope this message finds you well. Thank you again for your helpful and constructive criticisms. DanceEnthusiast (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DanceEnthusiast. Non-independent and WP:PRIMARY and WP:ABOUTSELF sources may be and often are used to verify specific facts, and I am not saying that the two source you mention above must be removed from the draft. What I am saying is that these sources do not help to demonstrate notability. Several independent sources must be found that include significant coverage to establish that there should be an article at all. Once these are in place, other sources may be used to verify particular facts. See WP:NBIO and WP:NACTOR. Is the distinction clearer now? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the distinction now thank you. My last question would be relating to the Repertoire section in the draft of Galdino if I could ask you to just quickly look at the cites I used and the information that I am relaying.

If I had more significant coverage in terms of articles - Is it okay to still cite the productions a person has been in even if the article mentions briefly the role within the production? This relating to major works a person has done?

Thank you againDanceEnthusiast (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DanceEnthusiast, these are very good questions, thank you. It is definitely OK to list in an article significant performances that a dancer has been part of, just as it is ok to list exhibitions that an artist has been featured in. Such performances may be cited to a page from the dance troupe or ballet company, sucvh and an "about" page. However, if there are independent reviews that discuss the dancer individually, those are of greater value and help to establish notability as well as supporting the specific statements. In fact, independent critical reviews can be an excellent way to support articles about any sort of creative person. The dance company would normally be a reliable source, even though it is not independent. (A;; cited sources should be reliable.) Oh I might call such a section "Selected performances": rather than "Repertoire", but that is a style issue. When three is a source saying that he played a specific, named role, that could be included.

As to your earlier question about the Mail and Guardian article, if similar words had been written by an independent reporter or article author and published by a reliable source, they would have had m,ore value as showing what others think of Mr. Galdino, not just what he thinks of himself. Sucxh an articel would contribute significantly to notability, as well as being a source for specific statements. As it is, the citation should make it celar that the article was written by Galdino himself. I have edited the draft to add this info to the citation.

I hope, all tjhis is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I am grateful for the valuable inputs that you have made. I Have edited the Galdino draft. I have removed a number of citations along with any statements using those citations. At current the article is at a final stage. I have cleaned it up as per some of the thoughts and understanding that you had made me aware of. Does the article in its new form hold any value? Or does it still need more extensive articles about the subject? There are I believe there are 3 some citations in the draft that do hold notability. 1.) Kyle Deutsch releases brand new single, Bring Back The Love". 947.co.za 2.) "End Of Everything". Papmagazine. Retrieved 2020-06-21 3.) Brasil-África - Ser negro ajudou brasileiro a estrelar balé na África do Sul". RFI (in Portuguese). 2016-09-18. Retrieved 2020-06-21 . At this point there is very little more that I can do to Ruan Galdino draft. Let me know if thhe draft is enough to publish in its current state. I wish not to inconvenience you as I have already taken up some of your time in my questioning and I have done my best to be concise in discuissing this article. (I am still new and I am sure that the next draft will be of a higher standard much earlier on in its creation phase that what The Ruan Galdino draft has been. I have learnt much from these discussions with you and will apply these techniques in the future. I wish in the future to have more talks regarding other drafts I have planned and if you ever need my help you can find me on my talk page. DanceEnthusiast (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, DanceEnthusiast. I am afraid I don't think so. Let me tell you why:

The significant evaluation of Galdino in the 947.co.za item is a quote from Kyle Deutsch. Now Deutsch is the creator of the work in which Galdino appeared, and so Deutsch's comments are not independent. Deutsch has an interest in praising those who he selected to work with him, because in doing so he is praising hsi own work and his own judgement in selecting them. If an independent reviewer said much the same things about Galdino's performance that would count much more for notability.
"End Of Everything" Unless I have misundewrstood, this is a video of a performance by Galdino. It does establish that he was in that short film. But has anyone ever paid attention to that film? It's mere existence doesn't tell the reader that. An independant reveiw to say nthat this is a significant film, one that others have taken note of, would be needed.
The RFI source is more useful. But much of the significant content is in the form of quotes from Galdino, and that part is no0t independent, it is Galdino talking about himself.

Note that coverage need not be positive to help with notability. An independent review or comment by someone who took Galdino's work to pieces would still be independent comment about him, and count towards notability.

Please do note that even if a source is not independent, it can still be used to cite facts, provided that they are not extraordinary claims or strongly controversial. It is not needed to remove all such citations, merely to add several (usually at least three, but there are exceptions -- a single book largely devoted to a person or topic may be enough) independent sources with significant coverage to demonstrate notability.

If those three are the best sources out there, it may be WP:TOOSOON for an article about Galdino. As his career continues, more written about him that can be used. Note also that sources need not be online. It is easier to find and review online sources, but many of the best sources are not online.

Note also that I am not some sort of final arbiter. This is just mu opinion. You can wait for another editor to do a review, or even move the draft to the main article space yourself. I do not advise the latter -- I think the current draft would be likely to be nominated for deletion and deleted after discussion -- but one can never be sure.

The lesson here is to find the key sources first and not spend effort writing a draft until a basic minimum of sources are already in hand that should establish notability. Pretty much no one really understands that on his or her first attempt at a Wikipedia article. But one learns it. I hope this advice has been somewhat helpful. Feel free to ask me any further questions, about this draft or any other topic on Wikipedia. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am actually so amazed at the time you took to help evaluate and discuss this draft of Galdino. I will perhaps come back to this draft if Galdino grown in notablility(more articles,book source, etc).. Thank you for looking through the 3 sources I had supplied and helping me understand them. I understand not to take you as a "final arbiter' and that these sources I have used are not necessarily incorrect. The issue being that there are not even 3 credible citations in the draft to begin with that could stand as "pillars to the draft". I value the criticism you have given. This being my first attempt at an article I was sure to stumble along the way. I would like to keep in contact with you. I have ideas and would like to discuss future drafts, definitely! I will leave the draft as it is in its current form. I see it becomes deleted after 6 months if no activity made I believe so I shall keep close watch on this draft but will lay it to rest. I would like to move on from this experience and begin with a new draft/project.

You mention moving the draft to article space(though ill advised) as an option. Does this mean that drafts do not have to go through submission process to become articles? .The draft would have to be of high quality to trust that it would not be deleted so easily I take it?
The other question I have is how to deal with interview information? I see that GAldino has spoken about himself which is not an independent source, however how do I deal with an interview as source material? an example is this article relating to a different person call Silvia. https://cupofjo.com/2019/02/ingrid-silva-beauty-uniform/ How does one treat Q&A as a source?

I have no further questions relating to the Galdino Draft or any other for the time being. I would like to discuss more once I show you a new draft. Better this time

Thank youDanceEnthusiast (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to be of help, DanceEnthusiast, and I would be happy to look at any new drafts you might be working on, ore to give any advice and assistance I can. I will not promise always to respond promptly, however. To answer your questions above:

Any autoconfirmed user (which you are) may move any draft to the main article space at any time, provided that the moving user believes in good faith that doing so will benefit the encyclopedia and that the draft is suitable as an article. This is the same good faith re4quirement as is imposed on any edit. I myself start all my knew articles as drafts and move them when I think they are ready, because I cannot create a valid article in a single edit. However I do not submit them for review. However, such moves are logged and are often reviewed by the New Page Patrol and may be nominated for deletion after such a review.
Interviews require some judgement. Some editors prefer to avoid them totally. An interview can be used for the same sort of things that a person's own web site can be used for -- uncontroversial factual statements. For example: a person's birth place, birth year, parents' names, the school(s) that person attended, and other basic biographical information. They can also be sources of quotes from the subject. (for example Jones said in an interview with Hot Spot: "I have always taken as much time as needed to get the work right." in an article about Jones.) In those cases where the interviewer/reporter makes significant comment, perhaps in an intro or conclusion to the interview, that comment can be treated as a separate independent article.

Feel free to put a message here (probably in a new section) or to ping me to some other page at any time. (Without the ping or a {{talkback}} I may well never see the message. I am automatically notified of any edit to this page.) DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. I will create a new section if(when) we have later discussions. Or I shall use the other methods you have outlined to contact you. And I understand you might not answer immediately but I am happy knowing that you are there and that a reply would happen even if it takes a while.

All the best wishes. Until next time,thank youDanceEnthusiast (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This World We Live In page

Hi DES, thanks for restoring the page for This World We Live In (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:This_World_We_Live_In). I've written a synopsis and added some biographic detail and a couple of reviews. Is that enough to publish the page rather than have it be a draft? Thanks - Madeleine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.198.233 (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hi! Thank you for your consideration in unblocking my account! It's nice that by making some mistakes you don't necessarily ruin your Wikipedia future, but you can move forward! I promise to make the unblock worth it with my edits :) Bachdze (talk) 07:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MrSuckyHead2006

user:MrSuckyHead2006 is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Barkeep49 has already dealt with this, CLCStudent, but thank you for the notification. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haikyu (season 1)

Can you at least restore the page without the summaries or show me the history link from 17:54, 28 June 2020 so I can do it because this isn't right for other people. SpectresWrath (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into whether I can fairly easily restore a version with no copyright infringements, later today i hope. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any luck? SpectresWrath (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you change the revision back to visible so I can restore the page again without the summaries. SpectresWrath (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, SpectresWrath. I have restored Haikyu!! (season 1) and edited out only those summaries which the copyright check tool reported as including significant copied text. Where a given summery included significant copied test, I mostly delted the whole ,thing and did not try to sonstruct a paraphrase. In sme cases I left in sentences that appear OK from a copyright perspectivce. I then used revision deletion to remove all those revisions that i9ncluded any of the copyright infringing text, while leaving those that did not visible. I saw that you had restarted the article. Your new versions are in the history, but the trimmed older version is now the current version.

The process took me a bit over an hour. You or someone will want to re-write those episode descriptions which I had to remove so that they are accurate, but not infringing.

Please note that while I was doing this, TAnthony made an edit to chan ge the color of the line elements in the display. The edit summary was Subsitute color(s) to make infobox and/or episode table color contrast compliant with WP:COLOR, I express no view on the merits of that edit, if you don't like it please discuss with TAnthony on Talk:Haikyu!! (season 1).

Again, sorry for the delay. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiLoop Battlefield new name vote

Dear DESiegel,

Thank you for your interest and contributions to WikiLoop Battlefield. We are holding a voting for proposed new name. We would like to invite you to this voting. The voting is held at m:WikiProject_WikiLoop/New_name_vote and ends on July 13th 00:00 UTC.

xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 05:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gessius of Petra article review

Hi and thanks for the review. Yes there is another source! I will include it and flesh out the article tomorrow with more information and maybe an infobox. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was just a comment, Julia Domna Ba'al not a full review. Without access to the source, I couldn't really do a proper review -- but no doubt someone will be able to. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Infoboxes for lists of possibly relevant infobox templates, Julia Domna Ba'al. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Taranto

Hello DESiegel

Thank you for your message.

I applied for undeletion of Dave Taranto as I received a message from CptViraj stating that Dave Taranto has been nominated for deletion. When I went to sandbox the the title was gone. I presumed that I cannot, then, start the article on Dave Taranto. The title or subject was rejected, I asked editors for assistance. They were very, very helpful. They've encouraged me to gather material and learn the basics of article writing. I'm new. I don't know where this all sits. I'm unsure if I can re-start the beginnings of the article. I presume I can, but I wanted to know for certain.

Thank you for your time

Crashingdown Man (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barkercoder

Hi, You have given me excellent and detailed answers to my questions which I am following up. Some of the revision made by other editors are incorrect e.g links and punctation, english spelling (which I believe Wiki rules should respect) etc. On the plus side some editors have changed the tone of the article and I can now see the error of my text to meet the WK:MOS requirements. After I have done some more research and I will be making a few revisions:- If you could maintain your watch it would be appreciated.

I will add an info box
A photo of Warnahm Court has also been moved from a reference link into the main page. This in my opinion is an overuse of pictures in the article. I shall change it back especially as I'm adding the info box.
I will correct the error changes. My history will show why the changes have been made.

There's a requiremnt for cites to be added. If I can't find examples I will change the text to avoid any necessity. Your input is much appreciated. Thanks Windswept (talk) 08:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Barkercoder I am glad to have been of assistance

About the picture of Warnahm Court. Wikimeia commons is not considered to be a suitable reference source, so the image should either be included in the article, or omitted completely, not simply linked.
If an inmfobox is to be used, I would suggest {{infobox scientist}}. Be careful to read and follow the instructions in the documentation page. Note that only items supported by that infobax can be included. Infoboxes do not support general free-form text. And of course, an infobox is not required, although many editors and readers like them.
You are quite correct that WP:ENGVAR indicates that edits to change from British to US versions of English, or the reverse, are disapproved except to achieve consistency within an article, unless there is discussion and consensus for a change. Since Barker lived in the UK, I would rather expect British English to be used, but change of the established style in the article for personal preference is not OK.

Please do feel free to ask any additional questions, or ask for any assistance here or at the Teahouse or Help Desk. I hope you will continue to edit other articles after this one. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Nibulismul

Hello, you rejected my apply to get my text refunded, so I was wondering if you could please send that to my email. I don't know how this works but please send it to me through my mail. Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabitzu200 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sent, Gabitzu200. Please note that articles and drafts here on en.Wikipedia should be in English, and should cite appropriate reliable sources. Please sign comments on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). The wiki software converts this into your signature and a timestamp. Thank you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please

Do not feed the trolls. I investigated the IPs posts and the were clearly WP:NOTHERE. Removal of the posts was an attempt to avoid the Streisand effect and you defeated that purpose. MarnetteD|Talk 01:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MarnetteD I have responded on the Teahouyse talk page just now, and pinged you. I will "feed the trolls" whenever I please, and thee mere essay WP:DENY (which i disapprove of and always have) is not a valid reason for deleting a question from the Teahosue. I had read the Ip's deleted question before I ever reverted. I would revert again in such a case, and I will revert the next time someone deletes a Teahoue question on such grounds. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will proudly revert feeding of the trolls and will look forward to the AN/I that follows. MarnetteD|Talk 02:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't normally welcome an ANI dispute, MarnetteD, but in this sort of case I will be quite willing to enter into one, should the circumstance arise in future. Do be careful to avoid violating WP:TPO which is a guideline, unlike DENY, and is directly based on policy. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(courtesy ping @MarnetteD:) Perhaps I can be helpful here. Reverting the question was appropriate in this instance because the underlying post to which it drew attention was a BLP violation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, Newyorkbrad. The BLP violation had already been deleted and revdele'd, so no teahouse post could possibly draw any attention to it of any meaningful sort. Check the log timestamps. If I had been reverting that post, that would have ben a very different thing. I wasn't, haven't and wont. Furthermore, having made my case at the Teahouse talk, if someone chooses to delete the post again, i won't revert further, although I might go to ANI. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it again myself (before your reply above). I think it would be unfortunate for you to further publicize this situation at ANI, though I can't stop you if you choose to do that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, Newyorkbrad I'll let it drop this time, although I urge you to reconsider and restore the question and its answers. How would you feel about restoring the answers without the question?

But please understand that I would probably restore any simialrly deleted question in future, depending on the exact circumstances. You might want to look at the Teahouse talk page comments, and the archived comments from 2018 That i linked in that thread. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "depending on the exact circumstances" is the most relevant part of your response. I've re-read the threads you cite and they contain some support for the idea that the Teahouse might entertain a question from someone who is violating the sockpuppetry policy or some other policy. Within reasonable limits, that makes some sense, as it provides an opportunity to explain the policy and perhaps lead the editor to abide by it. In that sense I agree with you that we might be more lenient in the Teahouse, or on the help desk or other similar pages, than we would be if the same post were made elsewhere.

Violations of the BLP policy raise a different set of issues, through, because they can affect people outside Wikipedia itself. Despite that, if the Teahouse question linked to a potential good-faith edit that inadvertently violated the policy, it would be reasonable to address the question in a way that, without publicizing the problematic edit, guided the editor regarding how to avoid violations in the future.

In this instance the post linked to edits spreading unsourced conspiracy theories that accused a specific living person and organization of mass murder. That sort of edit cannot stand or be publicized on any page within Wikipedia, and there was no reasonable possibility that responding to the question would lead to improved editing in the future. As such, removing the question was supported by fundamental BLP principles and such material, when removed, may not be restored. I hope this clarifies my thinking and, perhaps, the thinking of several others who were involved in this discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad I quite agree that the post promoting the conspiracy theory had to go, and should have been removed via revdel promptly, and had another admin not done so first I would have done so myself.

But the Teahouse quote, while it quite likely was intended to draw attention to that BLP-violating post, did not actually link to it, it merely linked to the article on which it was made. Nor did it repeat the specific allegations -- had it done so, i would have removed it myself. Once the BLP violation had been removed, it was harmless, and making clear to new editors who might be reading the Teahouse that WP:NOTCENSORED does not mean WP:ANYTHINGGOES, that improper and particularly unsourced allegations are subject to removal and a block, seems to me a highly valuable message to convey, and doing so in the context of an actual question based on an actual post seems far more valuable than any theoretical statement or link to WP:BLP. Can you see and appreciate my PoV here? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's helpful in understanding your reaction, yes, and I think I would agree with you in 90+% of cases. This particular posting was an exception because the bizarre accusation that a named person has been complicit in more than 40 murders was so over-the-top. For that reason I didn't think the post could be the basis for a productive discussion, and there remained the concern that someone would ask "so what was so terrible about the original post anyway?", so I still do not agree with you in this particular instance. Hopefully, there won't be any more such posts and our disagreement can remain a theoretical one. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfair rejection of my submission Draft:Kapil Sankhla

Hi, seeking your help to understand why my draft, submitted just 2 hours ago under AfC got rejected citing the reason - the cases do not seem important enough to justify an article. If you go through the content and the independent references, all cases that I have mentioned have made headlines in all the noteworthy tabloids at the time and were high-profile in the country, which itself proves that they were well-known. Had they not been as well-known, would I have found as many independent references? One of the cases - Gopal Goyal Kanda - is also discussed on a Wikipedia page of the same name, although they have discussed the facts and not mentioned the lawyer, something that I intended to add using my references. I feel it is unjustified, but please let me know what you can make of the matter. Thanks in advance, regards, Tycheana (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Advice for newcomers

Hello,
You are receiving this message because you are invited to take part at Wikipedia:Advice for newcomers where you can provide advice that will help our newcomers in the future. It is not a discussion forum, just a place where you say what advice would be helpful to our future editors. I would like to get at least 100 editors to take part in this so please feel free to spread the word to other editors as well. I look forward to seeing what you say to newcomers. Interstellarity (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which Indian tabloids are regarded as noteworthy?

Hi, I wanted to seek your opinion on the Indian tabloids that are regarded as noteworthy enough to be used as sources on Wikipedia. When it comes to news reports on the current events of the day, can India Today, Business Standard, Economic Times and Financial Express be regarded as reliable and reputed sources? This is not about interviews or editorials, just news reports. Also Press Trust of India - can it be treated as a reliable source? Thanks in advance, Tycheana (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that India Today would be, Tycheana, but I have recently encountered some editors in AfD or DRV discussions saying that IT will reprint what are basically press releases. I don't know if this is accurate or not. I would suggest asking at the relibled sources noticeboard. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DESiegel, Barkeep49 directed me to the RSN page on Indian tabloids and many of the names that are counted as reliable feature in my source list - like TOI, The Business Standard, Economic Times and The Indian Express. Yet reviewer DGG is refusing to acknowledge them. I was wondering if I could show User Rosguill's page stating the same to reviewer DGG to justify my sources....??? Many thanks, regards, Tycheana (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can certainly point DGG to Wikipedia:New_page_patrol_source_guide#India and to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, which mentions some of the above, although note that ToI seems considered less reliable than I had thought, Tycheana. But I don't see DGG "refusing to acknowledge" these sources, he is not willing to rush into a review, and as he wrote to you, there is no rush here, and excessive hurry tends to make volunteer editors suspicious. Also, it is generally frowned on to ask the same question of multiple people or in multiple fora unless you note in each that the others are also being asked. This can cause people to waste time duplicating the effort top provide answers, and suggest that you are answer shopping, and will cite the response you like best. I suspect you are just eager to get a response from someone, but please understand that with over 6 million articles and thousands of pending drafts, no one of them can be highly urgent to many people. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DESiegel, not exactly shopping - more like trying to unravel a riddle. If you can just visit my talk page and read what he has written about the sources you would realize why I put out the question in the first place. As to why am posting on multiple for is because here people take time to respond, and maybe patience is not exactly my strongest virtue when it comes to seeking answers. For example, the AfC help desk - today morning was the first time I heard from them, but on a positive note, at least someone responded. Now that I am somewhat familiar, it did come as a revelation the way he spoke about the sources I have used on my talk page. Whatever I put out after that was in reaction to his comments. Anyway, sorry if it offended anyone, wasn't intended to, and many thanks for the guidance, best regards, Tycheana (talk) 05:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[[U: Tycheana}}, one of the reasons I go slowly is so I can put myself at a little Distance, and re-examine the issue from scratch. I know that I make mistakes , so I don't want to give a snap response that might be wrong again ; I want to do things right, and when I make mistakes I want to correct them. In any case what you get will be my opinion--Only the community can give a final answer. DGG ( talk ) 07:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, DGG.

Tycheana, I have looked at your talk page, and I think i understand your situation. But you do need to realize that many people do "shop" to try to get the answer they want, a bit like a child asking one parent after the other has said no. In particular, some paid editors will do this or any other technique that they think will get their work into the main article space, because that is when they get paid, even if it gets deleted again quickly. So you need to see that doing things which resemble the techniques of paid editors, even if for different reasons, does not dispose volunteers positively. It seems to me that you are trying in good faith to get an article written about a topic you think should be included here, but this is an area where many apparently acceptable sources in fact engage in considerable promotion, so sorting high-quslity sources from others is not easy, particularly for those of us who do not live in India and do not know its cultural context the way those who do live there know it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RSs and interviews

I want to clear up a misconception that the reliability of a promotional interview depends of where it was published. All newspapers and general and hobbyist magazines I know of publish promotional interviews, and I think they always have done so. The NYT has publsihed them consistently in the various feature sections; the New Yorker has published them even as major stories. A promotional interview is an interview where the subject is permitted to say whatever they please. The reason they are not a RS for notability or indeed for anything at all beyond what the subject wants to give as their personal views, is because they are not independent--the publication simply asks leading questions, and publishes whatever the subject responds. They have exactly the same degree of independence from the subject as what the subject publishes on their blog. Not all interviews are promotional : some are intended to be deliberately hostile, and some are , on rare occasions, intended to be analytic. The way to tell is to not just note what is the title of the source and its general reliability, but to read the actual item. There are fields where such interviews commonly are all the available content except for notes about funding and routine operations ,and if there isn othing better, it may be impossible to write a NPOV WP article, because there is no information independent of the subject. In additional to such promotional interviews, there is other promotional content: the style section of magazines is often almost entirely composed of such items, and the way to distinguish them is whether the publication seems to give any independent source for what it publishes.

Some publications give specific honest specifications about where the material is coming form. a key warning word, for example, is often "contributor", A key stylistic device to be taken as warning is a direct quote. And some publication title are honest: Anthing called Someplace business journal is a vehicle for PR, and almost always nothing more .

this does not mean that such content is worthless in the world. I read such content eagerly about material in my field of interest or relevant to my personal life. They're advertising, and advertising can be informative. I want to know what a chef of a new restaurant thinks it is trying to do; I want to know what a computer manufacturer thinks its noteworthy features are. I read them with full knowledge about where the information is coming from, and I would never rely on anything said there for anything in a WP article, except the person or firm's declared intentions--which may of course sometimes not be their true intentions. There are situations where such material can actually be reliable about the facts of the subject, but they're special cases.

Officially, WP relies upon editorial control as a criterion. Editorial control of newspapers varies, and not a single one of them is perfect. No publication at all is a RS for everything. .There are no shortcuts: one must first read the actual reference, and then anaalyze it critically with a knowedgeof where the likely problems may be. We have in the past naively acted as if sourcing were a mechnical operation. It is not. Remember that the highest level of the PR profession is the ability to gets the client's preferredm material into what the reader is likely to think a high-quality publication. DGG ( talk ) 09:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DGG For the most part, I agree with what you have posted above, although I would not use the term "Promotional interview" Tto describe the kind of interview where the reporter or interviewer masks short, usually general questions and allows the subject to answer at whatever length s/he chooses. I think such interviews are sometimes promotional, and sometimes rather less so, but in general, they are not independent. Even what might be called a hostile interview is usually not independent. However, it does happen that a publication combines an interview reporting, sometimes in the form of introduction, sometimes in the form of a conclusion, less often interspersed between interview segments. In this case, the non-interview sections of ma piece are, I think, as reliable and independent as other stories in the same publication generally are. Also, I believe some publications fact-check an otherwise wide-open interview, and will either remove answers that don't stand up, or include a comment to that effect in the published piece I am also not quite as ready to agree with your list of Red Flags above, such as the meaning of "Contributor" which I think varies significantly between publications, or the contents of any Someplace Business Journal, which again I think are not all alike. But aside from those points, I agree with the above.

Which makes me wonder why you chose to post it here, on m y user talk page, as a subsection of the section about " Indian tabloids" started by User Tycheana , in which you were mentioned. Since you did not ping Tycheana, I presume you must have intended the above for me. It it your opinion that I in particular have been too ready to accept what you refer to as promotional interviews as reliable and notability-conferring sources? If so, please be specific in where you think i have made such an error, so that I can correct my future actio9ns. Or if not, then why did you post the above here and now?

By the way, it seems to me that the above could well serve as the start of a good Wikipedi9a essay. Would you object if I were to use it in such a way? Yes I know, posting here releases everything under CC-BY-SA, so I don't need to ask. But as a matter of courtesy, I would not take such a step without asking. Further if I did such a thing, i would modify the above some what, and add in some of the tho0ughts from this response. What do you think? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this here as the beginning of a specific reply, and possibly as a start of a general discussion. I intended to copy i over to my talk page, but became too tired to continue. I will adjust it. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i have this in mind for an essay--and most of the longer posts on my talk pages and elsewhere are in some sense essays; I've always meant to rewrite them as such, but I almost never have. Certainly you can use this; perhaps we might even think about a two part essay for the sign post .

as for specifics, I do agree with you that the signs of promotion In newspaper articles and the like are not always as simple as I said--Going into details here would make for a very essay indeed. The main thing I omittedIs that multiple interviews with exactly the same contents usually a sure sign of prepared text That the publisher is just re-printing! DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and I gave Tycheana the response, "

Now, about the article:

as a general rule, attorney are notable either from being lead attorneys on notable cases, or in having references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements written on them. If you want to base the argument on his cases, try writing articles on them, but I don't think they'll be found notable. As for the refs, most are in the context of the cases only. Ref 1 is straight pr, .You are right that many of the other articles are not PR , but they are about the particular case, not the individual.

Im sorry, but I do not see the basis for an acceptable article. But I do not have the last word, and iif some other reviewer accepts it, I will decide whether to challenge it at AfD. The community gets to decide." DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DESiegel, sorry for having dropped off the radar for the last few days. Two families in the neighborhood tested COVID positive and then everyone else was tested and the surroundings sanitized rigorously. Then there is the pending decision of the residential complex being declared a containment zone, so have been shopping to stock up the essentials.

I went through the discussion above, and have asked reviewer DGG what I can do about the draft going ahead. As far as the interview is concerned, I have used only the content preceding it to ascertain the location and education and absolutely nothing from the interview per say. But if that is also doubtful, then will remove it altogether. Overall, I have asked him if narrowing down the draft and the sources to the 4-5 newspapers that are acknowledged here would help, and am awaiting his guidance on the matter. Thanks & sincere apologies once again, best regards, Tycheana (talk) 07:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked this editor for disruptive editing, included multiple undeclared paid editing, based partially upon off wiki evidence. DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me, DGG. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Restore my deleted page?

Hello, you just commented on my post in the TeaHouse. Would you be able to restore my "Andy Avalos" page as a draft for further improvements? From there I would revise with improved sources and use Articles for Creation to ensure it is up-to-par before being re-published on Wikipedia. This is the first page I have ever created so I am invested in ensuring it meets the standards of the site. --Ybrik22 (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Ybrik22, restored to Draft:Andy Avalos. Please read referencing for beginners and improve the ref formatting, as well as adding sources to demonstrate notability, if possible. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mukesh Officials

Greetings. Not going to argue with the CSD-decline on A7 grounds, but I notice that an article on him had been previously deleted under a different title per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mukesh Officials (Singer) and wanted to ask for a G4 check before I sent this back to AfD. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 22:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don 't say that this would pass an AfD, or even that I would !vote keep. But the previous AfD was 5 years ago, and G4 is generally not enforced over that kind of timespan (and when it is DRV often overturns it). Beyond that, the 2015 version had no cited sourness beyond the subject's own web presence, this has several. They may not be enough to establish notability, but they are there. So I don't think that G4 applies. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Finngall: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I figured as much on all of the above. I figured A7 wasn't in the cards and was planning on AfDing from the get-go but I edit-conflicted with the speedy tagger so I reverted myself to let the A7 decision play out. Then I went to send it back after your action and caught the link to the old discussion in the Twinkle preview, so I just wanted the double-check before proceeding. Thank you again for your time. --Finngall ^talk 22:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Finngall. It is part of what I do here. Note for the future that if you were reasonably sure that A7 did not apply, you could have removed the speedy tag yourself, and gone to AfD. Any editor who is not the creator may remove such a tag if s/he thinks in good faith that the speedy criterion does not apply. This is not something only an admin may do, although deleting the page of course is is. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware that I could have removed the tag, but I decided to let an admin make the call instead. Now sent to AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mukesh Officials. Thanks again, and have a good day. --Finngall ^talk 22:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

The more I learn about copyright, the more I realize how much there is to know. I don't think it sunk in until you just mentioned it that the 1976 act eliminated the need to distinguish between published and unpublished. I have a vague recollection of sorting through that issue with the photograph that was taken prior to 1926 I believe but first published some years later, and making a mental note that I had to remember to distinguish the date of creation from the date of publication. It's good to know, if I followed correctly, that post 76 that's not something to worry about.--S Philbrick (Talk) 18:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction still matters, but not in the same way. Prior to the 1976 act there was no federal copyright for unpublished works, although state laws gave a degree of protection. The 1976 act preempted the state laws and extended copyright from the moment of fixation, but the term often depends on whether a work is published or not, and if it is, when and where. a work published in 1924, say, would now be in the public domain. But a work created in 1924 and published in 1934 might well be under copyright, and a work created in 1924 and never published would pretty much certainly be under copyright (if it was copyrightable at all). So the distinction between published and unpublished no longer matters for initial copyright, but does matter for when it expires. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC) @S Philbrick: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of Lorenzo Destefano draft

I believe the draft page was deleted in error. The website in question is the biography of the person I am making a page about. It is just a rough template to gather all the facts and will be elaborated upon before it is submitted for review. The author of the biographical reference, Lorenzo Destefano, the person whom the page is about and owns the copyright to the said page marked as a copyrighted work violation, has granted me permission to use said reference as a template for their wiki page. Since previous versions of his wiki drafts have been deleted I had to start from scratch, hence using the biography listed.

Mexicajedi (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, Mexicajedi but I am not going to restore Draft:Lorenzo DeStefano. Wikipedia policy on this is clear, Wikipedia will not host copyright violations, even on a temporary basis. "permission to use on Wikipedia" is not sufficient, the copyright holder must release the content under a free license such as CC-BY-SA, such that anyone in the world my use or modify the content, at any item, for any purpose, including commercial use, without fee or permission, and such that the license grant is permanent. Moreover the copyright holder must either post the license publicly with the content, or else communicate the license directly to Wikipedia by email, as described at Donating copyrighted materiel.

You could start over. If you choose, you could start offline with the copied content, and modify it so that it is no longer a copyright infringement but is instead original in wording before you post a new version to Wikipedia. But even in draftspace, even while being worked on, copyrighted content is not acceptable on Wikipedia except under a free license as described above. See Wikipedia:Copyrights and linked pages for more details.

If you think my deletion was improper you may raise the matter at Deletion review. However I participate in discussions there regularly, and I do not think you will get a different answer. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so if we do the donate copyright materials or I edit the wording so its original I may continue? We can do that. Thank you! Mexicajedi (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is correct, Mexicajedi. I would advise rewriting in your own words rather than doing the donation. It is quicker, as otherwise the donation email will need to be written, sent, and then processed by a volunteer. Also, copied text is often more than a bit promotional or written in an informal tone that does not suit a Wikipedia article. Remember that an article should not express any opinions or make any judgements except when these are directly attributed to a named person, usually in a quote, and with a citation to support them. Otherwise only strictly factual statements should be included. See WP:NPOV. But either method deals with the copyright issue. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have redone the page and have added citations. It looks like someone went in and fixed some of the dates. My question is what is the next process, it has not been deleted nor made official. Mexicajedi (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Veer promotions

Hi DES. Since you’re pretty good at sorting this kind of thing out at the Teahouse, perhaps you wouldn’t mind helping this editor out as well. The username is an obvious violation that is going to lead to a soft-block if not changed, but the user page might be a misplaced draft. Also, although I didn’t dig to deeply, there are also some things that look like WP:APPARENTCOI (even possibly WP:UPE) with multiple accounts suddenly appearing and working together to create some new articles (or drafts) without going through AFC. One of the accounts (Nationalkarateteam has already been soft-blocked. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Marchjuly. I fear this is already beyond my abilities. User:Veer promotions has been blocked as a sockpuppet account, CU confirmed, along with several others, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Karateaniket. It did look as if the former content of User:Veer promotions was a misplaced draft (now overeritten by the block notice).It is about Pradhuman Singh Tomar who, taking the the statements in the page as accurate, is probably notable. But it contains only a single cited source, and tyhst does not so much as mention the subject's name, Had this editor still been active, I would have moved it to a userspace draft. But it needs significant work, and if I were to move it to draft space there seems no particular reason to assume that anyone would work on it. I could, I suppose try to get it to minimal mainspace status. Oddly I had advised Karateaniket on a different draft. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the block and was in the process of removing my post but got hit with an edit conflict because you were responding. Not much more to do here, accept you might want to take a look at WT:INDIA#O.P.S Bhadoria and WT:MARTIAL#Karate Association of Darbhanga if you think any of these can possibly be saved. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links, Marchjuly. I will take a look.

Of for future reference, should something like this happen again, please do not remove the post, edit conflict or not. If anyone removes any post from my user talk page, including their own, I revert the removal. Except maybe for an obvious misclick or delf-reversion of vandalism. Said is said. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I disagree with the G8 on The Devil's Music – Songs of Death and Damnation. I removed the prod after a short investigation, and I think this one needs a proper AfD. Lightburst (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At least I think I removed a prod there, perhaps you can check the history? It may have been a similarly titled article. Lightburst (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lightburst I deleted that as an A9, no assertion of significance for a musical recording where the artis has no article. In fact there had ben an articl about the band, but it weas deleted by AfD as non-notable recently, The contents were:

The Devil's Music - Songs of Death and Damnation is Danish black metal band Horned Almighty's second full-length studio album.

plus an infobox, a track list, and a list of people involved in making the album. Nothing else, and the only cited source was this. Do you really think there is a significant chance that this is notable? I am confident that if this were sent to AfD it would be deleted unless soemoen found additional sources, although that is always possible. Or I could restore it to draft if you intend to work on it. Do you? It seemed a routine A9 with another editor had tagged, quite possibly in the wake of the AfD on the band. ::::DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok DESiegel. Lol, I may be confused. I have been editing too much. I usually fix up the article before removing a prod so I am likely mistaken. Thanks! Lightburst (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like me to do, Lightburst? The AfD was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horned Almighty, by the way. Your edit had a summery of Removed prod, found much RS on the subject. Article needs to have rs added but is notable but no citations were added. If you have citations you would be ready to add I can restore this, either to mainspace or to draft. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we should let it go. Thanks! Lightburst (talk) 23:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Up to you, Lightburst If there are sources that yoiu think would pass WP:NMUSIC or the GNG, I'll be happy to restore. Speedy deletion is for clear cases, after all, and good sources would mak this much less clear. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Too many other things to edit. So I will move on. Lightburst (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Is it ok, that I work on templates like these? ฅʕ•̫͡•ʔฅ -- AppleUserWithPermissions (talk) 07:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may certainly create templates and experiment with them, AppleUserWithPermissions. But there might be some problems with using some of the ones you have created. For example, {{No use}} says that the page it is used on will be deleted soon. But it doesn't actually nominate the page for deletion, or put it into any speedy deletion category, as far as I can see, so it does not in fact do what it says it does. Or {{Checked and well}}. We don't generally use tempaltes to indicate thatr an article is in good shape, and cerrtianly no editor ever has to ask prmisison to make changes on an article, even a FA, so thid should not be used on any article. There is a somewhat simialr problem eith {{Please check}}. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand it. But look at the page I created for you. No use below. It puts an deletion on the page. ฅʕ•̫͡•ʔฅ -- AppleUserWithPermissions (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:DESiegel/no use

That is, cause the deletion is <includeonly>ฅʕ•̫͡•ʔฅ -- AppleUserWithPermissions (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your critique of my Wikipedia page on Isola delle Femmine

Hello DES, I am happy to receive comments and criticisms of my work but much of what you point out escapes me as being a problem. Perhaps you can explain further. I will comment on your points.

You question whether the legend attributed to Pliny the Younger is really the oldest. I give a reference for the legend. Given that this dates back to Emperor Trajan, I thought stating that it appears to be the oldest was a reasonable conclusion. Of the many other absurd legends regarding this name, none that I have read about predate that era.

I did the search of the posted index of Pliny's letters. Should I cite myself?

Please explain the difference be an analytic statement and an encyclopedic statement and why the former is not proper. I have always thought that proper analysis is publishable and of great value.

There are many such impossible or at least improbable legends about the name of this island. Do you think I should cite each and every one? I don't see the value in that. I believe there were at least two, one of them being the most absurd, given on this website as the only possible origin for the island's name before I replaced all of that with what is now shown. I do not believe any reference was given for those.

I find the legend of name evolution from Euphemius to Femmine more interesting than the rest, with the exception of the Arabic word for mouth, because there is documentation that Euphemius existed on Sicily and that there are still items in the area named after him. I thought a conclusion that this made this legend more interesting was obvious. Apparently, I need to more clearly state the obvious.

Regarding the Tonnara and the Arabic word for mouth, I give a reference for the Tonnare on Sicily and also state that some of the structures still remain near the city. I think that proves that part of that legend. You are correct that I do not give a reference to the Arabic word for mouth. I found an English to Arabic translator on the web which can sound out the Arabic words. The sound is clearly as we would pronounce "fim" with a short "i". I shall add a reference to that site.

You are correct that this page now represents considerable research including locating the 12th century parchment and finding the important statement about the "island named Fimi" written in Latin script. The present state of the page contains far more references than its predecessor. I can add a couple more as stated above. If you think I should cite my personal work in the places I noted, I can also do that.

JiminiVecchio (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JiminiVecchio. I could wish you had responded on the article talk page (Talk:Isola delle Femmine) where I posted my comments, both to keep the conversation in one connected piece, and because discussions about what should or should not go into an article are usually best on the article talk page, so that they stay with the article. But I wiull respond here rather than further fragment the discussion. I may copy it to the article talk page later, or linki from there to here. Several points.

Please read, or re-read, our policy on original research. Wikipedia articles, unlike scholarly articles in journals (or magazine articles) should report what other sources have said, combining information from multiple sources when possible. They should not draw any conclusions or do analysis of any kind beyond what is stated in one or more reliable, sources.
It5 is not your page, in the sense that an academic paper would be your work. It is Wikipedia's article. Please read read WP:OWN if this is not clear to you. I will assume that you were merely using thsi as short for "the article on which i did significant work" but it is a good idea to keep the distinction clear in mind by avoidi8ng such phrases as "my page".
I did not merely question whether the legend of Pliny's letter was the oldest tradition, but the existence of the legend. You gave one citation, to a 39 page document, without specifying a page number, and the word "Pliny" does not appear in that document. Please at least specify a page number. It would help if you provided bibliographic information for this source: Who wrote it , who published it, in what publication if any, and in what year, at least. This would help the reader judge its reliability. Having used google translate on what I think is the relevant page of the document, it says that the name may derive from a latter of Pliny, for which it gives no date beyond 62 AD (which i think is Pliny's date, not the letter's) buty does not say nor even imply that this is the oldest legend. Without a source that says this is the oldest, the Wikipedia article should not say so either.
You write I did the search of the posted index of Pliny's letters. Should I cite myself? No, you should leave out any such search altogether. unless a reliable soure reports the search, it should not be mentioned.
As I said above, any satement that does analysis to reach a conclusion not reached in a cited secondary source is original research and must be omitted. This is what I meant by an "analytic statement". An encyclopedic statement is one that reports or summarizes a statement or statements from a source or sources.
There are many such impossible or at least improbable legends about the name of this island. Do you think I should cite each and every one? Yes, i do, or else leave them otherwise the reader has no way to verify that the legends even exist. In fact I'll go further, on challenge (which you may regard this as begin) any such statement must be cited or removed.
I find the legend of name evolution from Euphemius to Femmine more interesting... But your opinions (ore mine) do not belong in the article. Unless a reliable secondary source has said that one is more interesting than the others, this is undue weight.
On the derivation from the Arabic word for mouth, it is not enough that the sounds are similar. Relying on similarity of sound often leads to blatantly false etymology. There needs to be a reliable source that says that this specific derivation is plausible, or possible.
As for the derivation from "insula Euphemii" you refer to this as a conjecture (pr indeed several conjectures), but you do not say whose. If it is in fact yours, it must be removed from the article. If not, it must be explicitly attributed to a named person, or if the conjecture is shared among multiple scholars, at least eon source that makes that specific conjecture must be cited.
"AMAZING FACTS ON HISTORY" is a wordpress source, which almost always means a source not considered reliable. With no listed author or publisher, this should not be used. I see that it in turn cites several source -- those could perhaps be used directly.

I hope that I have clarified my issues with this section. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying two points

I am sorry for writing my early reply to the incorrect place. I am still learning how to manage the various place to send information and in particular where to find those places. I write again here because this only applies to your comments to me.

I never referred to the Isola page as "my page". Nowhere on the page did I take credit for the work. I only referred to "my work" in my reply to you because in suggesting that some citations were missing, I thought you were asking me to cite my investigations. My misunderstanding. I understand the inapprpriatenous of stating authorship.

Yes, the "Statuto" of Isola delle Femmine is long and in Italian. The reason that "Pliny" is not found is because it is written in Italian as "Plinio". While Google Translate can be useful for some, it almost gets translations close to correct but makes several mistakes. I am capable of reading and writing Italian if not as well as one native born there. I did study in Firenze as a student. I did translate the entire section called "Background" and can reference more of the legends as described there.

I will see how I can deal with the issues you have raised with the present state of English Wikipedia page about Isola delle Femmine. You might want to find someone to make similar checks of the similar page available in different languages. I did not contribute to any of them but I read the one in Italian. It covers much of the English version but not all and makes no attempt to cover the 12th century edict that gave the first record of the name the small island.

JiminiVecchio (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, JiminiVecchio

Don't worry about responding here instead of on the article talk page -- it did get my attention, and Wikipedia can be a complex place.

My apologies if I mis-read you as saying "my page". It is a mistake that many newer editors make, and not a huge issue.

There is nothing wrong with citing a long source -- I had occasion recently to cite a book several hundred pages long. But when you do cite such a source, please provide a page number (or numbers) so that the reader knows where in the document to look. Please use |page= or |pages= for this purpose. Similarly there is nothing wrong with a source in Italian. But it is helpful to provide a translated version of the source title with |trans-title= and of the publication title with |trans-work= (if the source is an article or story in a larger publication such as a journal, magazine, or book).

I quite agree that Google translate is not yet good enough to put its output into an article. But it is often good enough to verify a source. Not to write from the source, into an article perhaps, but to check that the source does in fact support the statements for which it is cited. That is how I was using it.

I regret that I am not capable of reading, much less translating Italian. I was once somewhat capable in French, but that was years ago and i don't think I would be competent now.

Thank you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who provided the old reference in NYT and the information for his previous association with tobacco

Thanks but the URL for NYT had a yahoo search extension which I deleted.t I was the one who added that information in the reference section and someone edited it in the body of the page on Andrew Tisch according to my original summary. I still dont understand what cite is for and how to use. I see you didnt use it at all in your suggested edit. How do you us the cite arrows and when to use it. Did you use it but omitted it in your suggested text. Bloopersbetty (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Bloopersbetty[reply]

Thank you, Bloopersbetty I had missed that. I have now removed the search extension.

I am nit sure what you mean by the cite arrows. If you refer to the refToolbar, which displays as "cite" to the right of the "help" link, It is described in some detail at Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/3 and in fuller detail at Wikipedia:RefToolbar. This is a tool for constructing (and editing) reference citations. It produces the same output as a manually constructed citation, so you can't tell whether it was used or not from looking at the result. Well, except that there are some characteristic errors and oddities it sometimes produces which a manual editor would be unlikely to. One is stuffing the name of the work, and sometimes other information, into the article title, separated from the proper title by {{!}}. Another is giving the article title in all caps. When using the refToolbar to build a citation, one must always check and correct the output, as the script is not quite up to standard, and is certainly not as good as a human. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at User talk:Dane#Deprodding of Deepika Dhiman

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Dane#Deprodding of Deepika Dhiman. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again DES. Please also take a look at User talk:Dane#Deprodding of Karate Association of Darbhanga. Pretty much the same thing as before only this time I actually did ask about this article at WT:MARTIAL#Karate Association of Darbhanga and the feedback I got did seem to think this organization isn't probably notable. For reference, I've already added the latest account to the SPI.

There were some concerns raised at previous SPIs that all of this socking might be related to WP:UPE. My opinion is that it's likely not going to stop, but I'm not sure whether (at least at this stage) it qualifies as WP:LTA. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	"To let people know that their hard work is seen and appreciated" ... this really sums up my feelings toward you here at WP. I cannot thank you enough for everything you have done; especially recently with assistance on the page Jake Day. Maineartists (talk) 13:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, DESiegel. 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. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent active admin - afd TNT

Hi, could you have a look at a proposal to WP:TNT a deletion discussion that has got out of hand or any other appropriate remedy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pramati_Technologies_(2nd_nomination) I selected you based off recent active admin status. PainProf (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 3

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Junaid Khan (de facto ruler of Khiva)

added a link pointing to Junaid Khan

List of biographical films

added a link pointing to Ricky Bell

O2 Academy Islington

added a link pointing to Achilles Heel

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi DESiegel. Just a quick thank you for undeleting "Draft:Steve Mahabir" so promptly. I also appreciate the editorial comment. Hollander1961 (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite welcome, Hollander1961. I have made a few additional small edits. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:talk:Cory H Jones

Just a heads up your comment on User talk:Cory H Jones’s talk page inadvertently uses the User:Khushi patan nazia user name in the content. Cheers. Theroadislong (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback re: Handschriftencensus

thanks for the tips on straightening out my citations, I will go to work on learning how to do it. As I study and work at the University where Handschriftencensus is located, but not for Handschriftencensus directly, I disclosed my association and made it a point to write in a neutral tone. What is your impression, is there anything which sticks out, which could be improved in that regard? Hroberth Dunbar —Preceding undated comment added 19:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, {U|Hroberth Dunbar}}

The text from the lead section Handschriftencensus is consulted world-wide as a competence center for the research of tradition documents: medieval German language fragments and manuscripts, for ascertaining them and their description norms, i.e. work and signature, as well as the identity of the text. I find a bit confusing, and in my view the nEnglish grammer here is a bit lacking. What is meant by "tradition documents" and "description norms" exactly?
"codicological" is a somewhat obscure word, although on looking it up it seems not inaccurate. a brief explanatory parenthesis or not might be a good idea.
The unique extent of the descriptions... might be better as simply the descriptions "unique extent" is a somewhat unusual phrase in English.
It might be useful to list the scope of the Handschriftencensus project in terms of the rane dates of manuiscripts included, if this has been defined.
the draft currently appears neutral, not promotional nor biased, in my view. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Yes, some of the phrasing is a bit clumsy. I will fix it as best as I can. "Codicological" as in Codicology is certainly obscure, yet very accurate in this case, ie. HSC is exactly about book culture. I see there is a Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codicology, perhaps I can work the link in? "Tradition" (in this context) and "witness" are also very geeky philological terms that no one besides a philologist would be familiar with. It may be better to find more pedestrian synonyms? Yes, I am sure i can find the range of dates in the literature.

I officially submitted the article for review but will go about the edits you suggested. I greatly appreciate your help and feedback. Hroberth Dunbar ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hroberth Dunbar (talk • contribs) 09:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ahmass Fakahany for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ahmass Fakahany is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmass Fakahany until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 23:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying you as the admin who declined the speedy. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 23:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Kajiwara

Hi, I saw that you declined my speedy deletion request for Rob Kajiwara’s wikipedia page. As your reason, you quoted the wikipedia article stating "being featured in the upcoming ... film More Than Just a Brick in the Wall, which has a $39,000,000 budget”. However, when I click on the reference given for this claim, it links to a page on Mr. Kajiwara’s record label/production company, but does not contain any mention of the $39,000,000 figure. Considering this page was created by Mr. Kajiwara himself (see below paragraph), it is likely he lied about this figure for the purposes of self-promotion. Due to this, I believe that Rob Kajiwara is not a person of significance.

I’m also not sure where to mention this, but feel that you would be a good person to talk to. I believe that the creator of the Wikipedia page for Rob Kajiwara, “Wideyedwanderer”, is Mr. Kajiwara himself. There are many pieces of information that don’t have any source whatsoever, indicating it was written by someone with an intimate knowledge of Mr. Kajiwara’s life . Furthermore, “Wideyedwanderer” uploaded a photo on wikicommons and mentioned that the author is Rob Kajiwara, citing “own work” as the source. Furthermore, this same user has been busy adding references to Rob Kajiwara’s wikipedia page across various articles, usually under the "notable people” category. One bizarre example is a university that Mr. Kajiwara briefly attended - Kajiwara was listed as one of the “notable people” who have attended the school! According to the “Don’t talk about yourself” guideline, this is extremely unethical. I have removed all such references that were added.

In conclusion, I don’t think Rob Kajiwara is a person of significant interest. Further, I believe he is the creator of his own wikipedia page and has been busy inserting references to his own wikipedia page in as many articles as he can, no matter how obscure the relationship is. I believe his wikipedia page should be deleted, and perhaps, he should be reprimanded in some form.

99.250.152.194 (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP editor. Please do remember that a Claim of significance is a statemented which if supported by a source might tend to indicate that an article should be retained. It is sufficient that an article should not be deleted without discussion. It is not itself anything like enough to say that an article should not be deleted. When evaluating an A7 speedy request, I do not look for or evaluate sources, because the presence or absence of sources is largely irrelevant to that decision. Also, please note that autobiography, while discouraged, is not forbidden, and is not a reason to speedy delete, or indeed to delete, any article. Nor is the practice of inserting dubious or unwarranted links in other Wikipedia articles a reason for deletion of the article, although it might be a reason for blocking the editor if it rises to the level of disruptive editing. The possible reasons for deletion are the same as for any article, and by far the most common one is lack of notability. Establishing this takes some effort, and the nominator must do a WP:BEFORE search, and consider possible alternatives to deletion. Deletion is, or should be, a last resort when nothing else will serve.

Note that if Kajiwara's notability is establish -- say if there is an AfD discussion and the article is kept -- it is perfectly appropriate to list him among the notable attendees of any institution that he did verifiably attend, even briefly. There is nothing "bizarre" about that. If the article is deleted, of course all those links should be removed.

For the future, the place to report soemoen editing about him- or herself without disclosing the relationship is [[WP:COIN}}, the conflict of interest noticeboard.

Finally I urge you to consider creating and using a Wikipedia account. It is free. It does not even require disclosing your email address. And it makes communication with other editors significantly easier. It also actually protects your privacy better then editing without an account, as your IP address is no longer exposed to the public with each edit, but instead is restricted to a very small number of functionaries, all of whom have signed agreements not to disclose such information. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi DESiegel! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, About publish my article issue, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Just a note to thank you for your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medal "For services in the field of military cooperation". I left a response, I hope you don't see it as argumentative or confrontational, because I absolutely do not intend that way, it's an honest attempt to solicit your feedback. I am listening and am interested in your reply. I also read your essay Wikipedia:Process is Important and found it thoughtful and useful. I think much of what you write there reflect my feelings on why we need to stick to guidelines and policies at AfD. I hope this finds you well, Best wishes, // Timothy :: talk 20:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you in turn,TimothyBlue I do not object to the tone with which you made your arguments, although in my view your earlier comments to Necrothesp were ill-advised -- overly snarky if that editor had in fact been comparatively new, and looking rather silly when it turns out that Necrothesp is a very experienced editor indeed, and one who has been very active on the subject of medals and awards over the years -- check out the talk page of the relevant wiki project. I think you are treating the GNG as being more of an absolute than it is, and forgetting that new guidelines, including new SNGs, often arise by codifying existing practice, not de novo. The suggestion of a TBAN was IMO far over the top, and i am glad it was dropepd with no further discussion. But there ids no need to apologize fro defending existing guidelines against when seems to you to be excessive bending, nor to holding to your views and stating them as firmly and clearly as you can. FYI I came to this discussion from wp:DRV, where I am something of a regular. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clumie (talk) 07:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I appreciate your input. As far as I know the picture is not copyrighed to anyone apart from Michelle but of course I will be checking this out. The page is a 'draft'. I appreciate and respect Wikipedia's guidelines, policies and procedures.

Best regards,

Clumie (Wikipedian)

Clumie (talk) 07:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All photographs are copyrighted the moment they are taken, under US law. This is true even if no copyright notice appears on or with the photo. The copyright is initially held by the photographer unless there is a contractual arrangement between the photographer and his or her employer, in which case the copyright may be held by the employer, if the contract so specifies. In either case the photo is under copyright, and Wikipedia's copyright policy does not permit its use unless there has been a written release by the copyright holder under a compatible free license, such as CC-BY-SA 3.0.

I ask again what you did not answer before, where exactly did this picture come from? Was it published? If so where and by Whom? The procedure is that the uploader of a photo must indicate the source, and if possible the photographer and copyright holder. Wikipedia is rather strict in enforcement of this policy. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware that Draft:Michelle Baharier is a draft, but the copyright policy still applies, even to drafts. If File:Michelle Portrait.jpg is not properly licensed, it will be deleted from Wikipedia and from Wikimedia Commons. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Filter to prevent links to Draft articles being added in mainspace

Hi DESiegel
The work we did regarding Draft articles being added in mainspace seems to have petered out inconclusively. and they are still being added.
The last entry at Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard#Filter to prevent links to Draft articles being added in mainspace is

@DESiegel: I think you have enough examples, go ahead an list at WP:EF/R, referencing this for next steps. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you no longer think it is a good idea? whether you have been too busy? or whatever - please let me know - best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 09:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Arjayay. Thanks for the reminder. I've just let it slip, while a bit busy with other things. I have continued the AWB runs, picking up 1-4 items a day on average. I'll attend to this now. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request made at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested, Arjayay. If you like, you can post there in support or with any clarifications you see fit. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - for the record I've been removing 1-3 a day as well - different time zones can be advantageous - best wishes and thanks again - Arjayay (talk) 08:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yaacov Heller Draft

Hello David,

I hope all is well with you during this pandemic.

I talked to you several months ago and took what you said seriously and re did Yaacov Heller's entire article which I hope gets published on Wikipedia. The new article has significant research, referencing, etc.

I would appreciate it if you would kindly take a look at the draft for Yaacov (Draft:Yaacov Heller) which I've submitted for review. I've essentially finished and I'm waiting for comments and/or approval from an Administrator. I would appreciate your feedback.

Thank you sir.

Eric (EKP1234 (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

EKP1234I have made some edits to Draft:Yaacov Heller. Some issues I found in the draft:

Awards. Most of the awards should be cited, or at least many of them. Notable awards should be ones that either already have Wikipedia articles about the award, or would probably qualify for such articles. If you are not going to limit in this way, say "selected" awards or just "Awards" if the list is complete or nearly complete.
Please avoid name-dropping and citing sources that dot say anything about Heller.
Please provide dates of publication and authors whenever possible. However do not put "staff" or the name of a paper in the "last=" slot, that is only for the name of an actual hum,an author.
The work= parameter (or its aliases website= or newspaper=) should have the name of the publication, not its web domain. "Sun Sentinel, not sun-sentinel.com, please. Somne of the tools that generate a cite from a URL get this wrong.
Section headers use sentence case, not title case. Only the fist word is capitalized, except for proper names.
A few other things need citations, which I have indicated.

I have fixed some of the above, where I could -- generally the formatting issues. I can't add sources, or at least I haven't tried to do so.

Overall, this is looking pretty good. If you can add citations to some of the awards and the other places where i put cite needed tags, I think I will be able to approve this. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, Hope you're doing well. I took into account the suggestions and changes you asked me to make. I also made some other edits as requested by another editor with the username 'Hoary'. I would really appreciate if you could take another look at it and see if it's still lacking something. I tried to add a few more references but not everything is referenced e.g Yaacov's notable works. If that's an issue , should I remove unreferenced things in the 'Notable Works' section?

Hoping to hear from you sir! EKP1234 (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EKP1234 On a quick look, several sources have been added. Probably a significant improvement. On the works, any that can be cited should be. But it is probably enough to rename the section from "Notable works" to just "Selected works". I won't have time for a detailed reveiw today. I will try to look as soon as I can. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, DESiegel. 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. Normal Op (talk) 03:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Offshoots of Operation Car Wash

Hi DES - not sure what's happening at Offshoots of Operation Car Wash, specifically here.
It says it is transcluded from Draft:Operation Car Wash investigations, but Draft:Operation Car Wash investigations is a redirect to Offshoots of Operation Car Wash so that is circular - i.e. it's claiming to be transcluded from the same page it appears on - I'm confused - but there's nothing new in that - any ideas? - Arjayay (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arjayay Note that Phases of Operation Car Wash is not the same as Offshoots of Operation Car Wash. If I read this correctly, one of the "phases" seems to be trscluding info from one of the "offshoots", complicated by a redir through a draft. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arjayay, I think I have fixed this, see this edit DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that looks good - I just seemed to be going round in figure eights (like circles but more complex) - thanks again - Arjayay (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Arjayay. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Arjayay: Lol, sorry about the confusion; DES you seem to have figured it out now, though. Anyway, "Phases" was just moved from Draft to Mainspace, so maybe that's responsible for the timing of this. The older "Offshoots" redirect Draft:Operation Car Wash investigations doesn't have a lot of in-links (and none from mainspace), and they could all be updated, and the redirect deleted, if that helps any. Mathglot (talk) 09:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your always thoughtful and often thorough responses to new users at the Teahouse! You have terrific patience and generosity. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hissing at the U.S. flag

Could you please block user:Hissing at the U.S. flag ASAP for vandalism. She clearly will not stop until blocked. CLCStudent (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another admin blocvked this user while I was checkign the diffs, CLCStudent. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

need help

Can you please review my draft (about an easily verifiable geographic location, and which I provided multiple sources)..and see what it still needs to be acceptable for Wikipedia. Thank you. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/975232084 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B16D:882D:21B1:E29C:4E9E:BC34 (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse closure

Hey there, I noticed that you reverted my edit on closing SALivesMatter's section. Could you clarify what do you mean when you say "valid discussion"? SALivesMatter has been blocked: they are clearly only trying to promote their whatever political thing they are in. A look at their contribs will tell you that. Is there any way that it is supposedly "valid"? Cause I think they're not even tryna contribute. Looking up, users who are blocked have had their discussions closed. A response would be great, thank you :) Gerald WL 01:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Waldo Luis, the question was valid, whether the asker was or not. In any case, blocked users can be unblockled, sometimes quite rapidly.

In general, a Teahouse thread should not be closed simply because the asker was blocked. See previous discussions on this and related issues at WT:TH#Trolling, Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Archive 15#How to deal with socks/trolls asking Teahouse questions, [[Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Archive 6#{{resolved}} template?]], Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Archive 16#Question closures, Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Archive 16#removed question, and Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Archive 8#Resolved sections.

In any case, I will revert any such closure, or any deletion of a legitimate question (whoever the asker may be, blocked or not) on sight and without discussion in advance. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering. If that's the case, then I would like to point out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Please_can_I_ask_an_administrator_to_remove_User:Materialscientist? and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Sakura_School_Akademi. If the case is really that "Such closure [will be reverted], or any deletion of a legitimate question (whoever the asker may be, blocked or not) on sight and without discussion in advance," then the closure of those two discussions should be lifted up, whether the asker was or not. I have seen questions not valid in the Teahouse (such as the one I closed) not being closed, so perhaps those two discussions shouldn't be too. Forgive me if I misinterpret things; hope I got it right. Gerald WL 06:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aquaticity

Please review my article Aquaticity, all changes are in draft page, I wrote it again and added new references, thank you in advance Ydrofilos (talk) 07:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi DESiegel! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Becoming an admin, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

moving answer to correct section

No you didn't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. It looked to me as if you were answering the OP's other question. I'll move it back if you like, or you can do so yourself, of course. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Send me the Draft:Lake City via email?

I'm not sure on how to ping users, so I am just doing a message here regarding sending me the Lake City article. I have turned on email user. Zora Champion Mipha (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Zora Champion Mipha

By the way, how to ping a user is explained at WP:PING. In general, you use {{U|username}} (as I did for you just above) or {{ping|username}} or {{re|username}} or [[User:username]], and be sure to WP:SIGN the comment as part of the same edit. If the edit isn't signed, the ping does not work. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MfD

Hello,

It's me from the MfDs. Just a note to say I misinterpreted MfD criteria (especially for drafts) and so flagged those two when I shouldn't have. They were my first and so far only nominations. SmokeyJoe kindly walked me through draft deletion and I understand it correctly now so I shouldn't be doing any more erroneous noms. Sorry about that.

Regards, Giraffer (munch) 22:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC) "No problem, Giraffer. We all have to learn sometime. I don't fully agree with SmokeyJoe about how draftspace should be used, but we agree on this kind of nom. I am only surprised how many editors who should know better , because thery are experienced at MfD, don't seem to. But we all must learn sometime. Thanks for your reply. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Links to User pages

Hi DES
Just when you thought it was safe to go back in ....
I was checking for links to draft articles, when I came across this edit linking to this user page - I removed the link and then searched for other such links as per this search and removed a couple more.
I have only checked the first 100 and the vast majority are links to bots. You may have had enough with links to drafts, and not want to know about this, but I wonder if a block on links to user-pages in articles, is worth adding to the existing proposal for a block on links to draft pages? - Arjayay (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about this, Arjayay. I am inclined, right off the bat, not to add this to the filter proposal. Why? Because links to draft pages are almost always improper -- although I have found a few where such links are inside maintenance templates or PROD templates, explaining that content in an article is duplicated in a draft. Also there is an MOS provision to cite against links to drafts. I am not sure if there is a similar one about links to user pages, and links to bot user pages may well be legit, and a filter needs to have pretty clear certainty. However, AwB runs allow human case-by-case judgement. We will see. Again thanks. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hello ,I write this to request you something. A page named Manjappada Kerala Blasters Fans was protected from further submitting the draft.Please see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Manjappada_Kerala_Blasters_Fans .Just because of the fact that it was already deleted twice as per AFD due to lack of reliable sources and notabilty, it cannot be protected from further submission.Because now I believe that the article has enough notability and I am ready to submit it for AFC.I have the article structure in my sandbox as well.Please kindly note my sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shahoodu/sandbox So I kindly request you to remove the protection so I can procees with submission of draft. Waiting for thr reply Shahoodu (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Shahoodu. Well, yes it can be protected when a consensus discussion has judged that the topic is not notable, and that repeated attempts to create an article are only wasting everyone's time. It is unusual that a fan organization is notable separately. Please read WP:NORG. Such protection was in fact imposed by the MfD you linked to above. That is what "salt" means in this connection. As that restriction was imposed after a consensus discussion, I am not going to unilaterally undo it. Nor am Igoing to review and evaluate some 40 sources. If you want that protection lifted, you will need to go to deletion review. It would also be a good idea to notify Scottywong, who closed the MfD. What I will do is this: if you identify the best three or four sources, ones which you think show passage of WP:NORG and WP:GNG, I will reveiw those and advise if I think Deletion Revioew would be worth while. All sources must be independent that is not in any way affiliated with teh fan organization or the team. They must also be reliable which means with a good reputation for editorial control and fact-checking. This excludes blogs, fan sites, user fora, and one-person sites. Please don't even bother listing sources that are not independent and reliable. And don't list more than 4, please, or I won't review them. You don't need my review to go to Deletion Review, (often known as "DRV"), but if I am convinced I will support your request there. But given the history here, this will be a hard case to make. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the time.I will show you the best 4 independent sources.If all of them are from a single website would it be a problem Shahoodu (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shahoodu it would be better if they were from more than one site, please. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had sent you mail...kindly check please Shahoodu (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Links received by email from Shahoodu:

Well, not as good as I had hoped, not as bad as I had feared. Let's look at these sources:

**Source assessment table: prepared by User:DESiegel**
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Goal.com: "Kerala Blasters fan group Manjappada win 'Fan Club of the Year'"	? I do not know this site, it seems a bit promotional in regard to the sport as a whole	~ about one paragraph of coverage, mostly devoted to a non-notable award ( not notable because voted over social media). Otherwise not much about the fan organizatrion.	? Unknown
The Week: Kerala Blasters fan group 'Manjappada' ends boycott	Major news maazine in im India	Significant event, shows influence of fan organization as well as its size	✔ Yes
Indian Express: Yellow Army: Kerala Blasters’ 12th man	Major newspaper, green on Perennial sources list	Major article about history of fan org and its current status and influence	✔ Yes
Scroll.in: "Indian football: Meet Manjappada, the 12th man of Kerala Blasters and ISL's biggest fan group"	? Past discussions at WP:RSN have questioon the rel;iability of The Scroll, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 248#Scroll.in	Also covers history and current staste of fan organization in considerable detail	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

This is a somewhat marginal result, Shahoodu but it might be worth presenting at WP:DRV. If you do, please be sure to emphasize these four sources, or a similar short list. Resist the temptation to impress with a large number off m,ore dubious sources. The probable result, of that will be to get the appear rejected without much consideration. If there are other sources of equal quality,m be sure they are included in the sand box version and mention that they can be provided on request. Remove any poor sources from the sand box version before starting the DRV discussion. In the opening statement, explain why you think the organization passes WP:NORG, in detail. Do not make a fuss over past actions which you think improper, accusing people of bad faith or vandalism. Simply state, calmly, that you think a decision was incorrect, and what Wikipedia policies, guidelines, or customs apply. Or if relevant information was not previously considered, say what information is available to be considered now. Do not say thinks like "You can't XYZ" -- someone may take that as a challenge and try to prove you wrong. Do not argue with every poster who expresses a view against the article/draft. See WP:BLUDGEON.

For future reference, this kind of thing could have been posted here on my talk page, there was no need to send an email. And I get an automatic notice here when I am sent an email via Wikipedia, there is no need to send two remainders to me. Any time you are awaiting a response from another editor, allow at least 24 hours on an urgent matter, unless you have been very specifically promised a faster response than that. On not so urgent matters (which this is) allow a week or more. People have other things to do, both on and off Wikipedia. Editors are not generally paid, and many work full-time. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understood what you said.Apologing for any inconvinience faced.Like you previously said ,if I make sure other 2 more source pass all the criterias ,I hope you will also support in favour at DRV Shahoodu (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About the reliability of goal.com, I would like to point out the fact that it is one of the most reliable sources that editors use to confirm news relates to football.Goal.com confirms all the major football transfer news and mostly recently ,Lionel messi gave his first official interview to them after spreading the rumours about his exit from Barcelona.That interview were even covered by international and local newspapers in the my country. I hope you understood the fact. Thank you for your time again Shahoodu (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite welcome, Shahoodu. I wasn't complaining, but advising you what would go down better in the future, or that was my intent. As to goal.com, I am glad to hear it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for passing your knowledge regarding the matter.Now I have an Idea how to proceed with this.Hope I can contact you in future in case any doubt Shahoodu (talk) 04:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

№

Hello, DESiegel. 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. Shahoodu (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent the 4 links for the independent sources.Please kindly check the mail and tell me your opinion

Sadas db - Company pages Feedback request

hello, I really appreciated your feedback about my sandbox page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Giuseppe_Ardolino/sandbox#History). As suggested, I changed some part of the text related to English and canceled acronyms as S.r.l, S.p.A. Concerning the references/sources, what do you think about references? I added sources taking account of previous feedbacks. I read the guidelines and the sources of pages are external to the company website (They are related to clients and partners). Thank you for your collaboration Giuseppe Ardolino (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe Ardolino It is a start, but there is a ways to go in my view.

Sources elated to clients and partners are probably not independent, which is what is wanted. Try to find sources like newspapers and magazines, and other coverage from parties in no way affiliated with the company.
Reviews or evaluations of the company and its products from tryly independent sources, in no way affiliated with teh comopanyt, would be very helpful.
Sources such as "The CEO of Sadas participates as a speaker at Leasenews 2019", " Servicing improves business processes thanks to Sadas Engine technology", and " Banca Popolare di Sondrio uses Sadas Engine to manage the sources of data sources" sound like compoany influenced or affiliated sources. As I only read English, i cannot confirm this.
Please provide fuller bibliographic information for source items. Include the publication, or name of web site, in which the content appeared, the author if know, the date (or at least the year) if know, and the name of the publisher, when this adds context. Also, if the source is not in English, please indicate the source language, and if the title is not in English, please provide a translation of the title in square brackets. The Citation templates such as {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite book}}, and others, will format citations consistently, but they are not required.
Text such as mother company of the AS Group, The company bases its value on Sadas Engine's proprietary technology, and thanks to an “intelligent Upload” mechanism and a “Learn by Usage” technology. still sound rather promotional.
Please do not use euphemisms such as "passed away". Instead write "died".
When providing numbers, such as employee count or revenue, indicate explicitly what year they apply to. Remember that if the article is approved it will be around for years, and cannot be expected to be updated every year. Even if it is, a reader will not know that it has been unless the date is provided.

I hope those points are helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DES, thanks for your precious contribution. I modified my sandbox thanks to your feedback (I deleted the promotional part, modified some words, and added years details for employees. I kindly ask to explain this feedback: "Also, if the source is not in English, please indicate the source language, and if the title is not in English, please provide a translation of the title in square brackets. The Citation templates such as {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite book}}, and others, will format citations consistently, but they are not required.", Please could you give me some examples? I know it's not mandatory but I want to respect all guidelines in order to publish without problems. Thank you }} Giuseppe Ardolino (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Giuseppe Ardolino, here is an example. Suppose you were doing an article about a work of literature written in French, and there was a review, also published in French, that you wanted to cite. Let's assume it is not online. A Basic citation using a template might be written like this (I am inventing an imaginary publication for an example):

<ref>{{cite journal|title=Nom d'un Chien |work=Revus d'lheur |date=15 June 1971}}</ref>

This would appear in the reference list as:

"Nom d'n Chien". Revus d'lheur. 15 June 1971.

A fuller citation of the same source using the same template might be written like this:

<ref>{{cite journal|title=Nom d'un Chien |trans-title=Name of a dog |lang=fr |work=Revus d'lheur |trans-work=Reviews of the Hour |first=Jaques |last=Ecrivian |volume=24 |issue=12 |page=48 |date=15 June 1971 |publisher=Editions Rogue |quote=Renard's "A Dog's Life" shows a delicacy of construction rarely seen in provincial works from the 1860s.}}</ref>

This would appear in the reference list as:

Ecrivian, Jaques (15 June 1971). "Nom d'un Chien" [Name of a dog]. Revus d'lheur [Reviews of the Hour] (in French). 24 (12). Editions Rogue: 48. Renard's "A Dog's Life" shows a delicacy of construction rarely seen in English.

The |lang= gives the language in which the source is written. Its value is the name of the language, or better yet, the ISO code for the language. The |trans-title= gives the title of the source translated into English. The |trans-work= give the name of the publication (newspaper, journal, magazine, website, or the like) translated into English. The |quote= parameter gives a short relevant quote from the source that supports the point made in the article for which the source is being cited. It is particularly useful when the source is offline, or behind a paywall, or when the source is a long web page without page numbers and it might be hard to find the relevant part of the source document otherwise. All of these are optional, but often helpful.

See referencing for Beginners and Help:Footnotes for more on how to do citations, and particularly how to use citation templates. Note that templates are not required, the same info can be included manually instead, but the templates will always use the same consistent formatting, and handle the placement of italics and boldface in a consistent way. They (templates) also emit "microformat" info in the HTML that automatic scanning programs can read. The RefToolbar can help build citation templates in the source editor, and the cite button can do so in the Visual editor. Thre are other tools available as well.

I hope that is helpful, Giuseppe Ardolino. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I jsut took a look at the sandbox, Giuseppe Ardolino. I note that currntly many of the refernfes just give the title of the source and a link. They do not give the date (not even a year), do not give the name of the publication in which the source is contained, and do not list the author. Those are fairly basic pieces of information. They help the reader asses the value of a source without needing to click on a link, and they can help get an archived version of a source in palce if the link ever breaks. They can be provided manually or using a template. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DES, I really thank you for your feedback and contribution. I modified my sandbox ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Giuseppe_Ardolino/sandbox) and in particular references in accordance with the suggested template (where possible I added more information). I reviewed the promotional tone. Do you think it's possible to publish the page in respect of Wikipedia rules? Have a great weekend and thank you again }} Giuseppe Ardolino (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DES, do u have some advice for my feedback request? I would like to improve my page to publish on Wikipedia without errors. Thank you again }} Giuseppe Ardolino (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe Ardolino I have replied at length on User talk:Giuseppe Ardolino/sandbox. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Adeeb Ahamed

Hi DES,

Please could you review the page- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Adeeb_Ahamed_(businessman). I had contested deletion review as I felt the page was incorrectly deleted through articles for deletion review. They recommended that a new draft be created as the page had merits. Please could you check as you had voiced the page should not have been deleted in deletion review. Thank you for your time.

(Kuruvillac (talk) 05:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Florent Pereira

The subject recently died and now has more sources. I was the one who deleted the article previously (My old user name was DragoMynaa). TamilMirchi (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TamilMirchi: It does not follow that because a person has died that there can be no new sources about that person. Many people are written about more extensively after their deaths than before. And there could well be sources already existing but not previously considered. Nor did you delete the article. Rather you nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florent Pereira (2nd nomination). It was deleted by Premeditated Chaos who closed the AfD. Note that only three users commented in the AfD, and one suggested draftification. Only you were explicit about wanting deletion. I have undeleted the article to draft space as per a request at WP:REFUND by Neutral Fan. I was aware of the previous AfD, as shown by my adding it to the restored talk page for the draft. I am not quite sure what it is you want me to do, or what objection you have, if any, to the restoration. Please be clear if you want me to take some action beyond what I have already done in this matter. Thank you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DESiegel: What I meant is that can I recreate the article since he died? I have a made a draft (Draft:Florent C. Pereira) with more sources. TamilMirchi (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TamilMirchi The article has been restored at Draft:Florent Pereira. Please edit it there until it is clearly ready to move back to the main article space, adding such additional sources as may be available and appropriate. It is not helpful to have both a draft and an articel about the same topic or person, as a rule. Please cooperate with Neutral Fan, who requested restoration, if possible. I presume that both of you want a valid article in mainspace. I have tagged to article for the AfC project, but any editor in good standing who is at least autoconfirmed may bypass that if such editor sees fit. It is also not helpful to have multiple drafts on the same topic, and i am going to redirect the newer one to the restored one, to preserve the history. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TamilMirchi You are free to copy content and references from the history of the redirected draft to the restored draft. Please provided fuller bibliographic info for sources than was present in the redirected draft. Thank you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DESiegel Thank you so much. Just wondering if the draft could be moved to an article now?TamilMirchi (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this. Looks good to me. Neutral Fan (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

a7

I know we occasionally disagree about A7, and I've taken a few of them to afd, but I seriously do not think that "Kline currently serves as the Executive Vice President of Franchise Development[1] at My Place Hotels" " is something that could rationally be consider a claim to significance for an encyclopedia article. President, sure, VP if it's impt enough for a WP article, probably . but otherwise VP of a non-famous corporation, no. Anyway, It'll be at afd. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree, DGG, that such a statement does not establish notability. I am not at all sure that I would favor keeping at an AfD. Indeed unless additional sources are found, i would probably favor deletion. But it seems to mea that there is a reasonable chance that investigation would find such additional sources. Many VPs do have at least the basic three independent sources with significant coverage. Not all do, but in my view this means that a BEFORE search and a discussion are needed before deletion. I am far more concerned with avoiding speedy deletion of topics that would have proved notable if looked into than with avoiding AfDs that end in deletion. I will be interested in the outcome of the discussion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your help with the infobox! I really appreciate it. All my best, Maryphillips1952 (talk) 01:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:David Day (Canadian writer)

Hi there! I found your draft by chance and took the liberty to add a paragraph, it seemed weird not to mention at all the subject on which David Day was notable (even if I had trouble sourcing, most relevant stuff is on websites that no longer exist or fan pages). IMO this can be merged back to the article namespace :). -- Luk ^talk 06:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Luk, If you look at Talk:David Day (Canadian writer) and the history of David Day (Canadian writer) (you will have to bypass the redirect), you will see that those very sources, if I am not mistaken, have been rejected as not reliable, and not proper for a BLP. This is what led to the article being redirected, and to my starting the draft, which i do aim to have replace the redirect, merging the history. See also Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1075#Wikipedia Page for David Day, Canadian Writer is redirected and Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2020 September 7#Wikipedia page is redirected you will have a better idea of the issues with this article. I have gotten a bit behind with working on the draft (which is not even close to ready, in my view) but I will get back to it now. Thanks for your attention and efforts to help. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me, I agree with you that these sources are problematic (the Amazon one could be constructed as the author's word). For someone that has sold that many books, I'm surprised his online footprint is so small outside of these circles. -- Luk ^talk 21:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for uninvolved admin comment

Dear DESiegel,

First, sorry to add to your work.

I have recently brought up an incident to the noticeboard. After some discussion, I am there proposing to act as a WP:THIRD opinion so as to solve the dispute (between two other editors) in a more smooth and civil way. There are more details on the proposal there.

So far, there has been no input from neutral uninvolved admins, which is why I come to you.

If you could arrange such an opinion for me, even if it is not yours, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 22:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Walwal20. I have just read through the ANI thread -- I had actually seen the first part of it when posting the thread below it. I will say that I have interacted with David Eppstein a number of times at the Teahouse, and I generally respect his judgement. I can't yet opine in this particular case, however. I will post to the thread and try to help. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DESiegel, thanks a lot for hearing me out, and sorry again for placing more work on your shoulders. I have zero qualification to resolve the dispute, so I'm glad someone more experienced took over. I'm also ready to being reproached for any wrong/weird/hasty conduct I might have taken during the process so far. Thanks again, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 09:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the whole, I think that you did OK, Walwal20. Perhaps you could have waited for a further exchange with JBL on that user's talk page before going to ANI. And your proposal to be an uninvited third opinion was perhaps unwise, given your limited experience with such things, and that you had also been the person to raise the issue at ANI. Although note that what I did was not so very different from what you proposed to do. But you were in my view very correct that the mass reverts had to stop, or at least pause.

I admit to being curious as to how you came to choose me to reach out to. I don't recall interacting with you previously. But it doesn't really matter. There is more to do on this issue I think, but both parties are talking more reasonably now, I think. Thanks for bringing the matter to my attention. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the feedback. I think I can do better next time. As to how I chose to bring this to you specifically, I guess I forgot to state that in my initial message to you. I had found your name on the list of currently active admins at the time I decided to contact an admin directly, that's why. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 22:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your help in finding PD images. The Cornell U Library site was very helpful.Maryphillips1952 (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review! Any comments?

Thank you for the review of User:Catavar/sandbox/Ben_Collins-Sussman! I received an email from Wikipedia saying you had reviewed it, but if you left any comments or suggestions, I don't know where to find them. Is this a "looks good, submit to AFC" or is it a "fix these things" kind of review? Thank you! Catavar (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

so complicated to cahnge out a pic- can you help? my father is james b donovan - current photo is terrible /wish to change but instructions are too much!

Brooklyn blonde (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you are finding my advice complicated, Brooklyn blonde. What is the source of your suggested replacement picture? Who took it, and when? Who owns the copyright? Is it online, and if it is, what is the address? Why would the replacement be better, or at least as good, for readers of the article? Merely being a more flattering image is not much of a reason to change the current image, which seems to give a rather striking impression of your father, although of course I have no idea how accurate or inaccurate it may be. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

	Note of Appreciation
	David, Thanks for being a positive force and for your assistance! EKP1234 (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughts at DRV

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_September_25?markasread=200645887&markasreadwiki=enwiki#Draft:Manjappada_Kerala_Blasters_Fans The matter I already discussed with you is at DRV. Please tell your thoughts here Shahoodu (talk) 04:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shahoodu I have commented st the DRV DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your valuable time there. Shahoodu (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this ok

http://www.firstpost.com/sports/isl-2016-kerala-blasters-passionate-manjappada-fan-club-the-winners-before-the-final-3161688.html I hope this is same as that of the other 2 links I shown Shahoodu (talk) 03:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this also have enough coverage about the fan club. https://www.sportskeeda.com/football/5-things-that-other-fan-clubs-can-learn-from-manjappada. Please analyse these two Shahoodu (talk) 03:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am showing one more here. Please spend some time to go through all these 3 and tell me your opinion regarding these.Thus I can know whether it is relevant or not. https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/manjappada-diehard-kerala-blasters-fan-group-s-making-waves-111908 Shahoodu (talk) 05:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sportskeeda, and the thenewsminute articles are quite relevant and possibly helpful, Shahoodu. I cannot speak to the reputation of these publications, but the stories themselves look good to me. I urge you to mention them at the DRV discussion promptly. The earlier 2016 story from firstpost I think is of less value. It seems to be from a period before the fan group was really organized, so it is not really about the current group, because that did not yet exist. In a fully developed article it would probably be cited in a "History" or "Early days" section, but I think I would not add it to the DRV just now. All this is only my opinion, of course, and it will be for all who take part in the DRV discussion to decide. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thankyou Shahoodu (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Diamond Standard

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Diamond Standard. 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. Nixie9✉ 13:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification, Nixie9, but I did not delete or indeed ever edit Diamond Standard according to the logs. The most recent deletion was by David Gerard, and the one before that was by Jo-Jo Eumerus. Those editors should be notified. I will, however, read any Deletion Review post made about this article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

g11 and biographies

I like to message users when I delete their creations, and I use User:Deepfriedokra/g11 where needed. But I'm seeing more biographies G11 tagged, and I feel I need a fresh message or an adjustment of the current one. Would you mind commenting at User talk:Deepfriedokra/g11#Adjusting for biographies to help me help them? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

newspapers.com

You said in the Teahouse that you paid to subscribe. I do not. You are aware of the program that allows Wikipedia editors to access newspapers.com for free, are you not?

If you are not, I don't remember how I found out or how you get a free subscription but here is where I asked about renewing mine.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am now aware of that, Vchimpanzee. I paid before I was aware. I will probably not renew my paid sub. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Need a help

Sorry to ping you.I had a problem it's solved now.Thanks in advance(WhiteFalcon1 (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Need a help

I tried to add true info about the 50 years old company the shakti plastic industries however it was delete please help. Dhananjayrv (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Betsy James Wyeth

Hello, DESiegel,

This draft was on the G13 stale draft list for today but it looks like it just needs a little polishing. Do you want to submit it to AFC? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Catharine Paine Blaine

Hello, DESiegel. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Catharine Paine Blaine".

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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article: Draft:David Day (Canadian writer)

@DESiegel: You haven't work on this draft since September 2020. I have written something on the talk page of this draft without notice of anyone. Does it mean that this draft will be deleted soon? --Melly42 (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User page Typo

Hello SE, I am Lucky10 (10-Is-Lucky) I just wanted to inform you that on your user page you have a typo. It s located near the digital subscriptions: London Time Pages Lucky10 🧊 Userpage 🦜Talk 14:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

help me in approving my article

hi good evening Mr DESiegel .

i found your profile on wikipedia as a mentor and volunteer in helping new editors on wikipedia . i need help in this procedure . can you please help me finish my article .

my article is: about a person = masoud shafaghi best regards neda sajedi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neda.sajedi (talk • contribs) 15:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been pruned from a list

Hi DESiegel! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed on the AFC's participants list, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 6 months. Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to regain access to the AFCH script, you can do so at any time by visiting WT:AFCP. Thank you for your work at AFC, and if you start editing Wikipedia again we hope you will rejoin us. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Betsy James Wyeth

Hello, DESiegel. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Betsy James Wyeth, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

It would be nice to know your opinion.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:David Day (Canadian writer)

Hello, DESiegel. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:David Day (Canadian writer), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:David Day (Canadian writer)

Hello, DESiegel. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "David Day".

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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Celestina007 (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New page

I am new to editing in Wikipedia.

l Request Your help to create new pages on Important topic regarding Wildlife Science. Dijo Thomas Scientist (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Understood DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Catharine Paine Blaine

Hello, DESiegel,

Just a head's up, when you restore an old draft, one that has been deleted as a CSD G13, you have to make an edit, even a minor edit, to the page or it shows up as eligible for deletion because the last edit to the page was over six months ago. Restoring it from deletion doesn't affect whether or not it is eligible, you must make an edit to the page. I have made an edit to the draft so it won't be tagged for deletion again. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

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

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Betsy James Wyeth

Hello, DESiegel. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Betsy James Wyeth".

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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

always thank you for your help

Hi Mr Siegel,

There is an editor/administrator coming after profiles that have been here for years. questioning and deleting photos etc. One of the photos on Tamara Champlin's biography may have been questionable credentials, but the photo on Michael Caruso (musicians) profile was uploaded by its photographer. On Danielle Nicole (musician) biography there is a problem with the Concord Records photo. Please look into this and any help you can give me I would appreciate. Here is the reply I received: @Paulhus15: I didn't remove the photo. I only asked about it at c:COM:VPC#File:Michael Anthony Caruso.jpg. The photo was tagged for speedy deletion by another editor named c:User:Jeff G. (see c:User talk:Fragmentsforart#File:Michael Anthony Caruso.jpg) and then subsequently deleted by a Commons administrator named c:User:Túrelio. Once the file was deleted from Commons, it was removed by a bot from the Wikipedia article. If you feel an error was made, you can always post a message explaining why at c:User talk:Túrelio. For reference, though, the fact that a file has been used for a long time doesn't mean it's was uploaded under an acceptable or verifiable license; it could just as easily mean that no body bothered to check the file's licensing for a long time. The same image can essentially be seen used online as the cover art of a single by Caruso that was released at least two years prior to photo being uploaded to Commons, and almost always in such cases more formal verification is needed for such a file to be kept. So, if the photographer who took the photo had previously allowed it to be used for the cover art before they uploaded it to Commons, all they will likely need to do is follow the instructions given in c:COM:Licensing images: when do I contact VRT? and the file can be restored after VRT verification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Paulhus15 (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Catharine Paine Blaine

Hello, DESiegel. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Catharine Paine Blaine".

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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1089271440‎

Hi, I just popped into your sandbox, as it was throwing an error message since it's not a talk page. Just wanted to let you know if you want to do anything. Happy Editing--IAm Chaos 21:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to create a Wikipedia article that will not be deleted

I read the archives of the main Help Desk and the Teahouse and frequently see your guide to how to created a Wikipedia article. Is this an essay anywhere?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just for documentation, this is similar and if I run across that, I don't need to ask Ian.thomson about it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request (Rehmat Aziz Khan)

hi sir DESiegel please see draft Draft:Rehmat Aziz Khan references has been added. thanks --¬¬¬¬ 175.107.1.71 (talk) 10:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Principality of Ongal" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Principality of Ongal and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 25#Princedom of Ongal until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 02:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next several days.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 09:41, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions have been removed.

Subject to certain time limits and other restrictions, your administrative permissions may be returned upon request at WP:BN.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are fine in real life. Thank you for helping new editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40E1:C7:BDF0:68F6:D506:7FDD:21F9 (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

User:DESiegel, I'm just connecting here - as I write this, we're chatting on a mod call for Stack Exchange. It's good to make your acquaintance! -Philippe (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]