User talk:DESiegel/Archive 14

This is an archive of User talk:DESiegel. Please do not change it in any way. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back!

DESiegel – now that is a name I have not seen in some time. Your abrupt departure had a few of us at the Teahouse worried. It's good to see that you're all right. Mz7 (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Z (1995)

Hi there. From the looks of things, at the very least, either A11 or G3 (hoax) applies. I just checked and there does not appear to be any Dragon Ball film called "Dragon Ball Z: Battle in the Two Worlds", or at least not with that exact title. The two 1995 Dragon Ball films are Fusion Reborn and Wrath of the Dragon. I've gone ahead and retagged it as G3 (hoax). If it's declined again, I'll probably PROD it instead. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I just deleted/undeleted the thing after the oldcsd template penetrated my feeble mind. No G-hits-- looked like a test edit to me. But once declined. . . .

I too I'm glad you are back, though I only just returned myself. Dlohcierekim 04:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Restoration of Buddy Davis (creationist)

I would like a copy restored to my userspace so that I can work on it and try to establish notability, using independent, reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurelius2018 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Very well, Aurelius2018, I will do so. DES ^(talk) 02:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The page is now at User:Aurelius2018/Buddy Davis (creationist), Aurelius2018. You are free to work on it as you please. But remember that for it to be moved back to article mainspace, it will need to demonstrate notability, using cites to reliable sources, which must be published, and independent of Davis or his employers. Feel free to ask for help at the Teahouse. Please read the previous links, WP:42, and Your First Article if you have not already read them . DES ^(talk) 03:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

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

Keisha Anderson

added links pointing to American Basketball League and Chicago Blaze

500 Miles High

added a link pointing to University of the Arts

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou so much for the help dear DESiegel by 123shob123

=== Regarding my Article Haji Anayat Ali ===
Hello sir, I am grateful for your kind help in resubmitting my article for review which was deleted as i unintentionally submitted the same article twice. It was my mistake and as it was my first article i couldnt figure out the mistake. I am having a lot of fun here because of wonderful and helping people like you. Wikipedia is a revolution and it has completely changed my life. I hope this thankyou note is in the correct format on the right place as this is also my first note. I am extremely grateful to you for your valuable time in helping a stranger like me.123shob123 (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Your time is much appreciated! MisterMcHugh (talk) 07:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thank you for the help! Boeing329 (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

PDF in format parameter (Teahouse response follow-up)

Hey David. I noticed a while back that when using pdf links in citation templates, they recognize its nature as a pdf and automatically output both the pdf symbol and "(PDF)" – exactly as they do when you add |format=pdf. So, where I used to add the format parameter, I stopped doing that once I noticed this. I'm wondering if this is an instance of a technical improvement that never got captured in the documentation, and whether at least for pdfs, the format parameter should not be deprecated as redundant--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Coway Co - your deletion

is very likely entirely unjustified because it is counted among the biggest global water-treatment companies (see World Water Index). Even if you happen to find this debatable, I would kindly ask you resurrect a copy for further improvement in my userspace. I never had a ghost of a chance to react to the deletion proposal. Thanks in advance. -- Kku (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Kku that very well may be. There was no link to World Water Index, nor a statement that this was "among the biggest global water-treatment companies". Speedy deletion is generally based on the contents of the article as it stands, and does not involve any additional research. This is, unfortunately, one of the risks of creating an article directly in the main article space rather than in user space or Draft: space. I am generally considered one of the admins who tries hardest to find some claim of notability and to source stubs I find on checking speedy deletion candidates, and most likely to restore deleted content.

I will restore the article in your userspace, as requested, marking it as an submitted draft. I urge you to make sure that it is not subject to and of the speedy deletion criteria, and clearly establishes the notability of the company via citations to multiple independent, professionally published reliable sources that discuss the company in some detail, before submitting it for review or moving it back to article mainspace. DES ^(talk) 23:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Kku, I have restored the article text at User:Kku/Coway Co, marked as an unsubmitted AfC draft. I wish you well with it. DES ^(talk) 23:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear DESiegel, this is one of the first times I have experienced such considerate behaviour on WP. (Quite the contrary, to be sure) Thank you for that. I will try to make the relevance more explicit. -- Kku (talk) 08:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Kku, I am sorry to hear that you have experienced what seems to be a lack of considerate behavior on Wikipedia in the past. It is my view that editors, and particulalry admins, should be as helpful as possible to others, within the site policies and the general purpose to build an encyclopedia, of course. If I can be of furthre help to you in the future, please do feel free to leave a message for me on this talk page, or to visit the Teahouse, where other helpful editors do try to assist those who need help. DES ^(talk) 13:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you just compare-

This with the version you deleted last week? Much appreciated- many thanks. Hope you're well. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, the version which you tagged and i delted had more or less the same facts, but with considerably more puffery. For example the delted version included the text ". With over 2,700 healthcare technology professionals, CitiusTech serves about 80 healthcare technology companies/ISVs, large hospitals/IDNs, payers, providers and life sciences organizations and has presence in North America, Europe, Asia and the Middle East. CitiusTech offers services and solutions for healthcare software development, healthcare interoperability, regulatory compliance, BI/analytics, consumer engagement, care coordination and population health management." If the current version is in fact supported by its sources (which i have not yet checked) it might not qualify for a speedy as blatantly promotional. But it bears watchign and checking. Thanks for letting me know. DES ^(talk) 15:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

No problem- will do- thanks for the info too. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15

31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Rachel Joy Watson

Can I be told which part I did wrong? This is my first time editing and creating on Wikipedia. Thanks Josetorres97 (talk) 04:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Josetorres97. I will do my best to answer you. It is largely a matter of what you did not do -- you didn't indicate why Watson is particularly significant. You say that she grew up, got a degree, taught high school, and wrote a chapbook of poetry -- which usually means a very short publication, say 20 pages or less. Lots of people have done those sorts of things, and they do not get noticed outside of their personal circle. You don't say that her work was reviewed by anyone, that it won any awards, or was a best seller. You don't cite anything that anyone else wrote about her. In general a Wikipedia article can only be written about a subject that is notable which normally means that there are multiple professionally-published independent reliable sources that discuss the subject is some detail. For biographical articles in particular, see Wikipedia:Notability (people). If the notability of the subject cannot be demonstrated, there can't be any Wikipedia article about that subject, and that is simply that.

In addition, the tone of the text you posted was rather promotional. It read like an "about the author" blurb on the back cover of a book. Phrases like "wearing overalls, playing outside, searching for bugs and getting sunburned" and "trying to motivate her students to write and read bravely" and "She writes devotedly, paints her joy, and processes disenchantment, grief and courage through poetry." add nothing to the article, they are what Wikipedia calls puffery. Wikipedia articles should be factual and objective. They report what has happened and what other sources have written about a subject. They should include opinions only when they are those of a named person, and we can cite a published source where that person has expressed that opinion. Wikipedia articles should be based almost entirely on the contents of sources which can be cited.

If you want to try again, I urge you to read Your First Article. Then use the Article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This will allow you time to develop the draft, and have it reviewed by an experienced editor, before it need face possible deletion for not indicating the significance of its subject.

While I could restore the deleted version as a draft, almost all of it would need to be removed or changed before it could be accepted. Therefore I think you would do better to start fresh.

I hope this is helpful. I do assure you that there was nothing personal about the deletion, and I would like to do what I can to help you in future editing, if you wish. You might also post questions at The Teahouse, where a number of experienced editors try to be helpful. DES ^(talk) 05:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

UAA report

Apologies for the UAA report of TheDeleteBot123. I had warned this editor, but when I saw the editing pattern, which strongly suggesting socking as well as an inappropriate user name, I thought more urgent action might be justified, hence the report and duplicate action. I should have redacted by report on the editor's talk page. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Velella. I have looked through this user's contributions. They consist of exactly 3 edits, with none deleted (yet): putting a delete tag with reason "G11" on KIT Digital; placing a rather inappropriate CSD warning template on Talk:KIT Digital (it should have gone on the user talk page of the creator, of course); and replacing the CSD template on KIT Digital with another, slightly different one, but with the same reason given. The speedy was declined by you right afterwards. Now I admit that this does not look like a total newbie user, to know CSD templates and CSD criteria IDs right off (although anyone who can read documentation can learn all those easily enough, but few do without much prompting). But this does not seem to me to be socking in the negative sense, there is no attempt to appear to be multiple users here, nor to impersonate an actual user. Unless this is a banned user (which is possible) I don't see any particular urgency. If it seems urgent to you, AIV or ANI might be better venues to report than UAA. But I think you for wanting to deal with what seems at best a dubious editor. DES ^(talk) 21:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Teahouse talk

Hello DESiegel. Regarding what you said here, I'm not so sure either. I really didn't mean to suggest that the meaning of our notability guidelines is obvious, but I do think that they are the obvious place to begin when one is trying to determine whether an article is worth writing (or salvaging). I remember very clearly, in my early days here, being baffled when some editors would say a subject wasn't "notable" when it seemed clearly so—and then I read the guideline and it started to make sense. In any event, my comment to the OP was intended to provide a friendlier, less didactic response than the reply immediately preceding mine, and to encourage her to look at the big picture rather than the nuts and bolts. I hope I succeeded in that. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 14:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

National Women in Blues INC

Hi, I noticed that you declined the A7 speedy request on this, which I agree with. However, the text is purely promotional and posted by an organisation in violation of our user name policy (now blocked by another admin). I therefore speedied as G11. If you think I've got this wrong, please feel free to restore and prod/AFD as you see fit. I'm going to be away for a week from tomorrow, so just letting you know before I go Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Jimfbleak, I am the admin who blocked the user who created National Women in Blues INC. I don't think that has any bearing on whether the article was deletable or not. I thought it was somewhat promotional, but not to the G11 level. That was arguable, however. i do think the group is probably notable, my plan had been to source and rewrite when i had time. my plan now is to restore as a draft, source, and rewrite. Also, i hope and expect that the blocked use will rejoin us under a changed username, so i want to preserve the history. Thanks for notifying me. DES ^(talk) 15:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks! Robertgombos (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK for 500 Miles High

On 18 May 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 500 Miles High, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that although the lyrics of the Chick Corea song "500 Miles High" express romantic love, it became a hippy drug anthem? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/500 Miles High. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 500 Miles High), 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) 00:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Good job! —Ojorojo (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Declined speedy del of Hello Neighbor (2016 game)

Hello DESiegel, since you declined my speedy del of the above-mentioned redirect, I would like to reason my request (as I was not able to properly comment using the template/Twinkle): The game in question—Hello Neighbor—is set to release this year, while its very first announcement in 2014, and initial alpha release in 2015. There was never any key event sorrounding the game in 2016 (except for further releases), wherefore the disambiguator is blatantly false. Even if this is a R from move, I felt like the redirect is so very implausible and illogical (nonsensial) that it should be deleted. If am wrong about this, please let me know. RFD would really just waste a lot of time for likely the same result. Lordtobi (✉) 20:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, Lordtobi. That does make it implausible, and i will delete on that basis. DES ^(talk) 20:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Good to know I could clear this up! Cheers! Lordtobi (✉) 20:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course, Lordtobi. I have deleted the page. Thanks again. DES ^(talk) 20:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Citation Templates

I don't know why, but everytime I tried to answer you at Talk:Simon Cohen, It broke the page by interfering with the section header for the next section. Again, I'm not sure why, but the ping didn't notify me of your response. In another section, your reply-to did work. Go figure.

Anyway, thank you for pointing out the unity of style. I've seen that in documentation somewhere, but I couldn't remember where. All I know is that I tend to use whatever style I find. If the author is using a template, I find it easier to use what I find, then to go looking for a template. If they're using just <ref></ref>, that's what I use.  - Myk Streja (Talk to me) 14:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Myk Streja. If a ping is mis-formed and corrected later, the notification does not happen. See WP:ECHO.

The relevant page on citation styles is WP:CITEVAR. It is fine to simply follow whatever style is in use in the article. If multiple styles are in use, someone else can harmonize them, and that is not urgent. DES ^(talk) 14:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

A7

If you would like to propose an addition be made to WP:A7 requiring a minimum waiting period before tagging articles for deletion, similar to other criteria such as WP:A3 you are more than welcome to do so, although the topic has been discussed repeatedly and has failed to find strong consensus (e.g., [1], [2], [3]). However, that is currently not a valid reason for removing a nomination for speedy deletion under A7. If you have reviewed an article and would like to wait to see if can or will be improved sufficiently so as to pass A7, consider using Template:Hasty rather than removing the tag. TimothyJosephWood 16:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

response about Skaz One Article Notes

Hi DESegel, I'm new to adding local talent onto wikipedia so can you please elaborate a bit on your comments to me? I have found several independent sources that wrote about the reference Skaz One, including The Source Magazine which is a major magazine amongst hip hop music listeners, why would that not be a published reliable source? His following have several articles of his that can contributed, just looking for guidance as to what counts.

There are also major hip music websites that have featured him, lets use for purposes of an example Thizzlerontheroof.com. Can those be sited? That site is definitely independent of him as an artist as well as the few others I have. I've based the page around other bay area artists I've found on Wikipedia and am very confused as to what I'm and other contributors are missing. There is other public info, like spotify listeners and buyers, rankings on charts that are on independent websites as well as plenty coverage on youtube including the page being verified. Also, when I ran the search through google I found more than you referenced in your comment to me. Should those be added as well?

I'm trying to keep this by the book and it appears you've been around for much longer than I! Please get back to me as soon as possible, I do not want my edits to be the reason this guy gets his page taken down. He is truly gaining reputation around here and I do have the internet proof, just need to know what can be used.

Thanks! Ashleyh551 (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Ashleyh551. I will be glad to help if I can.

• To take your last point first, there is rarely a huge rush on Wikipedia. All edits are saved forever, and an old version can always be reverted to if that is desired. Even "deleted" pages are not truly deleted, just marked so that only those with special rights can see them (I have such rights). If a good reason is provided, a deleted page can always be undeleted.
• In any case, your edits to the article or the deletion discussion are not likely to cause the article to be deleted.
• Sources can be online or off, or a mix. Web sites that specialize in reviewing or assessing this kind of performance are very useful.
• The first question is whether the sources you have found are truly reliable sources. I don't know the hip-hop music scene well. Do these sources have a good reputation for accuracy? Do they have some sort of editor in chief or editorial board who exerts control over what is published? Are articles written by staff members, or are they posted by anyone who chooses to? Are they attributed to named authors? Note: blogs, fansites, and sites run and created by a single person are of limited use, unless that person has a very good rep as an expert in the field. WE want published magazines and newspapers, or web sites of comparable quality.
• Once we have pared the list to reliable sources, the next question is what they say about the subject (Skaz in this case). If they have only a brief mention, say a single sentence, about him, they are of little use in establishing his Notability, which is the task at the moment. Do not include sources that merely give a performance date, or include him in some list, or are otherwise what are called "routine coverage" or "passing mentions". We want reliable sources that discuss him (or his work) in some detail preferable for several paragraphs or more. If they express critical (analytical) opinions of his work, so much the better. Interviews with the subject, or articles clearly based largely on a Press Release from him or his publishers or associates, are of little use, because they are not independent. (What the interviewer says, particularly in the intro, can be used, but when people see that it is an inteview they tend to discount it somewhat. Remember, a few very good sources to cite (say 3-5) are significantly better than 20-30 sources that are of poor quality, or barely mention the subject.
• Once you have identified what seem to be the best sources to cite, since there is already a deletion discussion in progress, post to that discussion listing the sources you plan to rely on. Say that you will be adding them to the article shortly.
• Then add them to the article, including information from the sources, and supporting it with proper citations. Do read Referencing for Beginners. But if you have any problem adding the information, or the sources, or formatting the citations, ask for help at the Teahouse. I will respond if I can, but I may be busy or offline, and there are a number of helpful editors who watch the teahouse. you can include {{ping|DESiegel}} if yoiu want to draw my attention in particular. Or you can post here on my talk page, but then you will ahve to wait until i have time to respond.

I hope this was helpful. Please feel free to respond with additional questions. DES ^(talk) 22:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions

Perfect! Thanks you've answered all of my questions basically and I'll check out the links. The online magazines that I am referring to are reputable and have national followings, so they definitely are accurate. I will get all this stuff together and post it in the appropriate places, and explain the sites reputations in the deletion discussion page. I've also found some interesting information about him being a twice published author, with some work I think I can help this guy out a bit. He's pretty talented, for people who like his kind of music of genres of books. I'll include you once I've done my editing so you can see it as well.

Ashleyh551 (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Restore deleted talk page

You told another user that you could restore damaged or deleted pages. Could you do that for my talk page? I had an issue where my page was overwritten with data from User talk:Swelling (polymer science). This is the event, redacted because I don't want to bait the troll:

(cur | prev) 08:51, 25 May 2017‎ ???????? (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (6,505 bytes) (0)‎ . . (???????? moved page Talk:Swelling (polymer science) to User talk:Myk Streja without leaving a redirect) (undo | thank)

Hopefully that gives you the time and date to restore back to. If you can do it tonight, I will backup the page and add it back to the page when you're done. Thanks in advance no matter what happens.  - Myk Streja (Talk to me) 23:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myk Streja (talk • contribs)

Re: The Draft Richard Yelland -- New Revisions Per Yesterday's Input

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Richard_Yelland Hi DES, Thank you very much for your help with changes to the Richard Yelland draft document as well as taking the extra time to point out all the important details that aren't obvious to a first time contributor.

My immediate resubmission of the draft last night -- without the recommended changes -- was inadvertent. I submitted when I meant to save. So I hope that it wasn't too much of an issue or red flag the reviewers. I understand that this is not taken well by the volunteers. Because there were many relevant references to be added.

To that end, I focused all the new references that are feature articles on Richard Yelland or references in which there are a significant quote or direct reference. I also added references to replace IMDB references per your input.

The last thing, I believe, would be to get the footnotes put into proper formatting. You began to format for me -- that is appreciated. I tried to follow that lead but it wasn't immediately apparent on how I could do that.

Any help there would be excellent as well as -- you mentioned some kind of extra section for film credits. Perhaps you could elaborate. Or is the article close to the place where it could be resubmitted. Should everything be formatted prior to resubmission? DESiegel Thanks again!

Morgan USA

Morgan USA (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Morgan USA, I would urge you to format the current sources into proper footnotes before submitting again. This will make it easier for future reviewers to read the text, and would help you learn a skill which is essential to working on Wikipedia articles.

Secondly, I do not think the draft is ready for submission. It realy needs some sources that are about Yelland, or at least mention him when discussing his work. Sources thqt discuss his work while not so much as mentioning that it is his work are of reduced value, in my view. Some editors would say they are of zero value.

Thirdly, I wrote of a 'Critical reception" section. For an example, see the section in 500 Miles High which i worked on not long ago. Such a section typically includes cited commentary from multiple sources, ten or more if possible. Most or all sources are backed by a short quote, an attempt to capture the thrust of the review or commentary. Such a section can help document that Yelland is responsible for what WP:CREATIVE calls "a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" that has "...been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." This is the best route to establishing notability for Yelland, in my view.

I hope this advice is helpful. DES ^(talk) 02:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, Morgan USA, note that pages such as <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1675433/awards?ref_=tt_awd> are not "featured articles". That page does verify a single award -- although seeking some other source than the IMDB would be an improvement. But a "featured article" should have at least 5-6 paragraphs of prose about Yelland, or perhaps his work or one of his works. There should be several such featured articles cited to support the draft before it is submitted again. DES ^(talk) 02:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you DES -- understood on IMDB reference. That one -- and any others that are still in there -- can be replaced with other articles that verify the awards. I'm not sure if you looked at all the new references there now--at least half dozen or more. I have yet to put them into the preferred format yet. Will do so!

I agree. I need to learn if I'm going to contribute now and in the future. Appreciate that urging.  In the meantime, there are several new features, in the makeshift reference section, that offer much more coverage on Yelland--a few features on Yelland himself. Thank you for a taking another look if you have not.

Others chimed in at the Teahouse on the rule that says a creators work being reviewed is sufficient coverage. That said, I have tried to offer a range of reviews of the work and those references that discuss Yelland, as well as a couple that are more features on him.

Re the critical reception section idea -- that might work well here, most definitely. There are a couple of film titles that Yelland directed that were fairly well written about. 12 Miles North -- probably has a dozen articles -- and Sine Qua Non The Psychology of Big Wave Surfing with Greg Long probably has more than a half dozen 

and the crowd-funded film Between Two Harbors probably has between 6 and 10. I would just need guidance on how you might see laying that out. Now the article lists the film titles as short paragraphs. What part of the current article would you suggest keeping as a lead in and what part of it might be incorporated into a critical

Last thing, there is a significant feature documentary that was just released in March to film festivals. One of the contributing reviewers of an early draft of Yelland, it could have been you, added that film title to the article. It's entitle, The Long Way Back. It's a film that made three film festival screenings -- Phoenix Film Festival, where it won Best Documentary, Newport Film Festival where it received excellent reviews and then also the Asbury Park Music and Film Festival. After those initial screenings the film picked up a distribution deal that is soon to be announced. That film will be released internationally through all major media channels in the fall. How would that story possibly integrate with the current article in progress?

I look forward to your input and thanks again

M USA

PS: I tried a few different things on those two footnotes you provided under "reference". When I click "edit" it's not clear where that information is located so that I can add/edit. I added content there and it erased what you did and only left what I was intending to add.  
I tried to go to the reflist link.  I still can't find that information and those links that you originally typed in under 1. and 2. Any of the references help links people have provided has not made it any clearer unfortunately. 

Might you be able to type out a few quick tips? I'm sure once it's pointed out to me it will be very obvious. Unfortunately, right now it's a mystery. Sorry for the trouble and appreciate any help there. Thanks again!

Morgan USA (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Morgan USA (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Likely sock

On his third edit he posts about sockpuppets on his user page. [4]. Not this account's first rodeo at Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 04:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

In this edit] Legacypac indicated that three was no problem to solve. Comment above therefore struck but not removed. DES ^(talk) 07:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks re: DR case

Thanks (as original nominator) for your recent comment on my DR. My DRs last week were awkward (almost as awkward as my MD participation), and I had no idea how sensitive the userspace deletion issues still are. I am happy, though, to see the discussions now taking place, particularly at the stale userspace draft category, which may result in some degree of actual consensus on how to proceed. I have the impression that in this case the misleading labels in the automated tools are playing a major role in encouraging / sustaining "off-book" CSD interpretations. So anyway, thanks for your rather sane participation in this whole matter. Newimpartial (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent speedy deletion of Alan Hart page

Can you please reconsider the deletion of my page outline the bio and contributions of Alan Hart. If this is not the case, then I'd like the content back so I can reconsider edits, etc. There are many in my industry with similar pages on Wikipedia.

-Alan

Abhart (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Abhart. The page User:Abhart/sandbox read like a marketing brochure. As such it fell under the speedy deletion criteria U5 (misuse of Wikipedia as a free web host) and G11 (advertising or promotion). Phrases such as Hart specializes in marketing and growth for all types of businesses, consults to clients that range from fast growth companies to Fortune 500, Hart successfully built Keen Strategy to inclusion in the Inc. 500[2], and he has founded or served as an executive for eight startups., believes deeply in the power of brands, He’s passionate about sharing ideas, and for the past three years, has spearheaded and produced video and podcast series with some of the world’s top marketing professionals and business leaders, and Alan is an expert in marketing leadership challenges, brand strategy, innovation, marketing effectiveness, and marketing future trends. are all pretty much pure marketing-speak, and do not belong anywhere in a Wikipedia article. The pesudo-interview style in which you quote yourself is another clear indicator of the promotional nature of this text.

Because of all of the above, i will not restore the page

You say that There are many in my industry with similar pages on Wikipedia. Please point out a few, so that I can see that they are edited or deleted if they are really similar to the text you had on the sandbox page.

We are generally looser in applying Wikipedia standards to sandbox pages than anywhere else on Wikipedia, but a few things are still not accepted, particularly copyright infringements and clear promotional pages.

Wikipedia's guideline on autobiography does not flatly prohibit creating autobiographies, but it does strongly discourage such pages. If someone goes ahead anyway, s/he must expect that standards will be applied more strictly than they otherwise would be, just because of how hard it is to write neutrally about oneself and one's own work. Few can avoid unconscious bias in such writing, and many indulge in quite conscious promotionalism.

I will email the wiki-source of the most recent version of the page to you, for you to use as you wish. However, if you decide to create another autobiography, I urge you to start completely fresh, using none of the text from the previous attempt.

Wikipedia articles should be based quite largely on what independent, published, reliable sources say about a topic or subject. What the subject says about him- or herself, or what those closely connected with the subject say, is of much less value and should not occupy the major part of the article. There are cases where it is important to quote the subject's views, particularly where the subject is controversial. But this should be done only where it is essential for the reader to understand the subject. A subject's inspiration and ambition should rarely if ever be included at all. In line with this, the large majority of cited sources should be independent ones, and at least several of these should discuss the subject is some detail, not mere passing mentions nor directory entries or the like, nor routine coverage that anyone in a similar position would always get.

External links, that is, links to sites outside Wikipedia, should occur in an article in only two ways: 1) in inline source citations, displayed as footnotes; 2) in the External links section at the bottom of the article. They should not occur in the body text, although a single link to the subject's official or primary website may occur in an infobox.

I am sorry if you are frustrated by the deletion of the page you created, or feel that it is unfair. Please remember that Wikipedia aims to be an online encyclopedia, not a business directory or marketing medium.

If you want to create other articles here, please read our guideline on Notability, Wikipedia's Golden Rule, and Your First Article before starting again. Creating fresh articles is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia, and few manage it on their first attempt. DES ^(talk) 23:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, DESiegel/Archive 14. 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} 16:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Speedy deletion criteria

Sorry to bother you, but isn't userspace and draft space supposed to be exempt from speedy deletion criterion A7? Because this doesn't seem to be reflected in the current draft of the criteria, since a recent edit. Newimpartial (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC) <https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#General> the edit may have been reverted, but see the history and ongoing discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Gx criteria absolutely apply to Draft and Userspace. G=General=pretty much everywher. This has nothing to do with A7 and I have no idea why Newimpartial is still worried about deletion matters when he has been warned to stay out of this area. Here is a massive list of areas that need attention. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_backlog If deletion is REALLY interesting, try some deletion clean up work. Facing a page that has zero use in the project and thinking about what is the best way to remove this page with the least fuss tends to focus the mind. There is nothing like on the job training to learn policy. Legacypac (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Legacy, I volunteered to stay out of XfD discussions, which I have done. I did not volunteer to stop reading discussions or to stop raising questions on Talk pages. Why are you Hounding me?

By the way, I am following the backlog discussions with acute interest. However, I do not agree with you that stale userspace pages are an important area of work. I would rather participate in content creation. Newimpartial (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Newimpartial, A7, and the other Ax speedy deletion criteria apply only to articles. However, the various Gx criteria apply to all pages, with specific exceptions listed: for example G1 and G2 do not apply in userspace, G4 often does not apply in user or draft space, depending on the circumstances, etc. Now where has anyone used to t4ied to use A7 in draft space? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
• Legacypac to the best of my understanding has not been topic banned from deletion discussion or discussion of deletion policy. And I do think that you are way over focusing on speed in dealing with the so-called "backlog" to the point of ignoring consensus in some cases, and doing harm to the project in others. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Now, what do eithre of you want with me in particular? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not even tracking what Newimpartial is doing, he just keeps popping up with nonsense accusations I don't know what I'm doing. There is plenty of pages to be fixed/improved at the link I provided. Unreferenced BLPs, empty sections, articles that conflict with themselves etc Legacypac (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Legacypac. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I was just trying to ensure that you are in a position to notice if any scope creep happens in the current speedy deletion discussions. That is all. I wasn't accusing Legacy of anything. Newimpartial (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, Newimpartial, I have been arguing against scope creep and changes I think unwise (and for some i think wise) in the speedy deletion criteria for years, as a look at the archives of its talk page will show. (In fact I think it is on my top 10 list of talk pages by edit count. Checking, the edit counter says I have edited that page some 633 times over the years.) You never know how consensus will change here, but I would be astounded to see any serious proposal to apply the Ax criteria to draft space. Don't worry about that. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Could you please re-review an article to see if it has improved?

Hi, you reviewed the Fiona Themann article I wrote and a warning notice keeps turning up about what needs to be added. Would you please be so kind as to see if anything else needs changing and if not, possibly remove the improvement notice. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipagecreator10 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Dated at TfD

Hello. The Template:Dated is relisted for discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 June 7#Template:Dated at least one week ago. Join in. --George Ho (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Trouble with footnoting & adding critical response section to article draft

Thanks again for your help with the Richard Yelland article draft.

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Richard_Yelland

It seems that the Wiki provision -- stating that critical reviews of a creative work can make a creator notable even without the creator being mentioned directly in the article-- is a point that is key for assuring Yelland's notability. Several editors have brought that up to me during the revision process.

That said, there are a number of references I have added to the list of references to be footnoted, which do mention Yelland directly. For example, a video of Oscar Nominee Morgan Spurlock saying, "Richard yelland is a fantastic filmmaker."

I have tried to add those to the list of two footnotes that you inserted, as an example of proper footnoting. But I run into a block when trying to find the page where the footnotes exist -- is it a general page that exists somewhere else? I'd appreciate any help or direction.

If I add these references to the article, via proper footnoting that you started per above, would I be ready to resubmit ?

Or should I, per your recommendation, add a critical response section? If so, should it be done for one of the films, all of the films, the most prominent one or two of the films?? And, what portion of the article might be suggested as a lead-in to the critical response section if I were to go this route?

Lastly, I'm still interested in learning how to do this myself. But I also am I am happy to hand this over to any volunteer wishing to see it through. If I were to go that route, what's the best way to find a volunteer for the remaining work?

I appreciate the help DES, as always!

MUSA Morgan USA (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello DES (talk) I have posted two of these types of messages, above, to your talk page and haven't had a response yet. Perhaps I could simplify these questions by asking for your advice on one simple, best course of action to take -- so

I might revise the article and get it to a good place for resubmission. I have highly valued your input and attention to date and look forward to hearing from you. Thanks again, MUSA Morgan USA (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Morgan USA I am sorry not to have responded sooner. Let me try to answer several of your concerns. First about how to do footnotes.

Suppose I am writing an article about Joe Bloggs, a politician. I want to include the statement, "Joe Bloggs was elected mayor of Megacity in 1998." In my draft, I write the following:

Joe Bloggs was elected mayor of Megacity in 1998.<ref name="Landslide">{{cite news|title=Blogs Elected in Landslide|url=http://example.com/Ledger/news/1998-11-07-blogs-elected.htm |work=Megacity Ledger |first=Clark |last=Kent |date=November 7, 1998 |page=3 |accessdate=12 June 2017}}</ref>

This will render as:

Joe Bloggs was elected mayor of Megacity in 1998.

References

---

In short after the statement to be cited, you place <ref>...</ref> tags. Between the opening and closing ref tags, you place the citation, that tells the reader how to find the place in the source where the statement is supported. This should include, at the minimum, the title of the particular story or article, the title of the overall work being cited, and enough information to find the place being cited in the work. If possible it should include the author of the work, the date of publication, the page number (if pages are numbered in the work) and a link (full URL) if the source is online. If the source was found online, the "access date" or "date retrieved" is the latest date when you saw it online and confirmed that the link worked. Note that the information form the footnote is included in the text of the article, but is displayed at the bottom, where the {{reflist}} is placed, in the Notes or References section, usually.

A citation I added to the Richard Yelland draft was this:

In 2017 the feature-length documentary ''The Long Way Back: The Story of Todd Z-Man Zalkins'', directed by Yelland, was released.<ref name="NewPortIndy-2017">{{cite web|title=“The Long Way Back” is a Harrowing Ride|url=http://www.newportbeachindy.com/long-way-back-harrowing-ride/|work=Newport Beach Independent Online |date=21 April 2017 |first=Norm |last=Bour |accessdate=1 June 2017}}</ref>

You can use the templates {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite magazine}}, and others to format citations, but you don't have to. I like them and usually use them, but far from everyone does.

I need to go for a bit, but I will return and try to answer your other questions later today. I hope this was helpful as far as it went. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Morgan USA. As to the state of Draft:Richard_Yelland, I would strongly advise looking for several solid critical reviews of his work, published in reliable sources, preferably ones which mention his name as well as the title of the work, but in any case ones which spend several paragraphs discussing the work. If you can find 5 or 6 or more of these, plus what is already in the draft, set up a Critical response section in the draft, quoting each review for a phrase or a sentence, and being careful to provide an inline citation for each quote. Then get the other references properly formatted as inline cites. Then and only then it might be ready for re-submission. That is my advice.

A critical response section does not need to have a "lead-in" as such, but it would normally be put after the section(s) describing Yelland's career. Those should mostly be in chronological order, by the way, unless there is a good reason for some different order.

Things such as the Morgan Spurloc quote are nice, but if it is only the one sentence, it really doesn't do much. We don't need a famous person saying that Yelland is good. We need several discussing at length why Yelland, or his work, is or isn't good. It doesn't matter so much what they say about him -- it matters that they thought him worth discussing at some length and in some detail. Unless Morgan Spurloc went on about Yelland for a couple of paragraphs or more, his comment is of strictly limited value in establishing Yelland's notability. The "celebrity endorsement" is of pretty nearly zero value on Wikipedia. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello DES -- Appreciate you getting back to me and no need to apologize for the delay. As long as we can keep the dialogue moving, great! I was able to add a reference successfully and now, FINALLY, see how it works. Excellent. I will able to add them all once I'm ready to commit to the format of the article I plan to submit. A critical response section sounds like a plan. Might I include the two films -- 12 Miles North and The Long Way Back - that arguably are the most impactful and thus were most reviewed? I see that you contributed to the 500 Miles High article -- this is a great reference. However, that is one song. In the case of two films, how might I break those two down in the article? Might I do a subhead for each film under the Critical Response section?? Or, under the Critical Response headline, would I write one paragraph for the film, 12 Miles North (2012), and then, to follow in chronological order, one paragraph for The Long Way Back 2017)?

Lastly, as far as the existing draft, might you show me -- perhaps by copying and pasting a portion of the existing draft-- what could work as "the section describing Yelland's career (in your words)" that will act as the lead in to this Critical response section?

Thank you again!! MUSA Morgan USA (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Morgan USA. My advice would be:

• FIRST, move all your "Sources not yet footnoted" into proper inline citations, before you do anything else. Then as you edit, they will be moved with the existing text as you copy/paste it into different positions. You don't have to do it that way, but otherwise you can lose what source goes with what statement.
• Second, by section(s) describing Yelland's career I meant sections not yet created, that would be formed from the existing text.
• To be more specific, after the lead sentence Richard Morgan Yelland (born 1967) is an American documentary filmmaker, commercial director, writer and producer best known for his 2012 documentary, 12 Miles North: The Nick Gabaldon Story and bringing the life of surfer, Nick Gabaldon, to national prominence. (which should end there) I would insert a heading ==Career== After that I would describe Yelland's career in chronological order, staying strictly factual, omitting any reviews or endorsement quotes. After that I would start a new section ==Critical response== (note the sentence case capitalization). In this I would include a number of paragraphs of more or less the form in <publication1> Joe Blow wrote of <film1> that: "<place review quote here>"<citation here> followed by in <publication2> Jane Doe wrote of <film2> that: "<place review quote here>"<citation here>. You can also summarize the rest of the review, or perhaps include a second quote if it is a long review, one for a dramatic line, one for a conclusion perhaps. If there are multiple quotes about the same film, group them together. If there are, say 4-5 or more about the same film, include a subhead ===<film1>=== but this should really only be done unless there are at least 2 different films deserving of their own subsections (4-5+ reviews each). Do NOT include blogs or fansites, only include reliable sources, respectable review sites or publications. Major newspapers or magazines would be particularly good. ideally you should include reaction to all of Yelland's works, if reviews in reliable sources can be found. Do not include 1-3 sentence mentions even in good sources -- each review should be substantial. Any celebraty endorsements can go in the Critical response section, or just be omitted.
• When you added a citation in this edit you omitted the |work= parameter. This parameter (also called |website=) should give the name of the publication (not its URL or domain) like The New York Times or Fred's Movie reviews. It is not a major issue, but it helps provide context to the cite. It is particularly important for cites that are not online. You can also use |publiher= for the name of the company that publishes the work, but don't bother if it is pretty much the same as the name of the work (telling us that The New York times is published by The New York Times Company adds nothing useful).

I hope all that is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

RFC

Apologies for dragging you inadvertently in some fashion into this RFC debacle. I know it was never your intention when you were being helpful on the Tea House. Koncorde (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

No problem, Koncorde. I more or less invited myself in, and it wasn't nearly as bad as drama boards sometimes are. Part of what I signed up for when I accepted adminship lo those many years ago. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Human Resources Professionals

My contribution just needed slight reorganisation to be as good a start class article as eg Company of Public Relations Practitioners.

'As a compromise' - could a link be added from the livery company list here to the London Wiki page and/or the Guild website until the actual WP page is developed. Jackiespeel (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I hate to tell you, Jackiespeel, but the version of Guild of Human Resource Professionals that I deleted was a long way from becoming a solid start-class article. It could be done, if the sources are there. Indeed that would need to be the first step toward any new version: identifying multiple independent published reliable sources that discuss the Guild in some detail. Without such sources, there can be no valid article. Secondly, I would strongly urge that any new attempt by built using the article wizard to create a draft under the Articles for creation project. In that way, an experienced editor will review the draft after you think it is ready, and give you feedback on any problems if s/he deems it not ready to be an article.

As to adding a link: Wikipedia does not do link exchanges, nor add links as a "compromise". Links are added when and only when they are relevant and useful to the readers of the article on which they are to be displayed. Links should never be added as a means of promotion of the target. As the former article said The intention is to become one of the Livery Companies., implying that the Guild is not yet a Livery Company, I am not sure that such a link would be appropriate. But that is a matter to discuss on Talk:Livery company, where I see you have previously posted about the Guild. Any editor may add such a link if it seems proper, and any other may revert the addition if s/he disagrees. No admin help is needed for either process. I see that Livery company does not include links to the web sites of any of the existing 110 Livery companies, nor to those of the several companies in the process of moving toward that status. So it seems to me that a link to the site of the Guild of Human Resource Professionals would be unlikely.

I am not quite clear what, if anything you would like from me? Advice? see above. The addition of a link: you can do that yourself, but it would be better to discuss it on the talk page first, where I doubt it will obtain consensus support. Is there something else that I can do to help you with this? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Basically - there are only two of us persistently active on London Wiki and there is a red link here on WP - so I was just setting the ball rolling (and WP formatting added) as on other occasions.

BTW - can you find anything on the 'Guild of Human Resources Professionals' (also on the Livery Company list) beyond a statement of intent? Jackiespeel (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

What's wrong with my sources ?

On the artile 39 Oxley road you put a nead better refrences tag, what is wrong with the current citations ?Zubin12 (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the sources cited, Zubin12. My main suggestion was that additional sources should be added. Several significant facts still seem to be unsupported by citations to sources. My secondary suggestion was that fuller bibliographic information be included in the citations. You have, since I added the tag, done some of that, although the authors do not seem to be listed yet. I said some of this in my post at The Teahouse thread.

Also, when you mention an article on someone's talk page, or on a help page such as the Teahouse, it is very helpful to provide a link, such as 38 Oxley Road. This makes it easy for the reader to go to the article involved. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Nosource-warn

Template:Nosource-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. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

B4 clarification

A clarification to WP:UP/RFC2016 § B4 has been proposed. You participated in that discussion; your input is welcome at Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring/B4 clarification. Thanks, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 15:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 08:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

You are wrong,... article is not copied !!!!

You should read it better...please, see FQXI web with several opinions and rates !!! Dapifo (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I can read it perfectly well, Dapifo. There are many sentences, indeed whole paragraphs, that are identical between the draft that you posted and the PDF linked from <http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2925>. <http://e-ciencia.com/opinion/foros/index.php?topic=21300.0> appears to have another copy of the same or a very similar text. That simply makes it unacceptable for Wikipedia. We simply cannot use text copied from elsewhere unless it has been released under a compatible free license, as the text in this case has not been. Secondly, even if the text was rewritten so thast it did not violate copyright, this appears to be a new and untested proposal in the sciences. Unless it is discussed by several reliable sources that are independent of its creator, it counts as original research or at least a not-yet notable new concept. I don't know if you are the author of this concept, or merely someone who thinks it worth study. But Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources have already written, it is not the place to publish original work, nor to promote new concepts not yet discussed by others in the field. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

IP 68.228.254.131

Hi DESiegel. Maybe (if it's possible for an IP) you should take away the talk page access as well. That won't cause this editor have an ephipany and lead to them changing their ways, but it might stop the disruption for the time being. I say "might" because I have a feeling that this person is enjoying this and will probably be back either with another IP or after the block has expired. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Marchjuly I just did that. i should have thought, since it was his/her own talk page being vandalized, to do that right away. Thanks. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I always find it unfortunate when this has to be done with an IP because it actually might stop someone who intends to be WP:HERE from editing, but I understand that in cases like this there is not really any other option. I have a feeling this person will be back perhaps with another IP, just to let Wikipedia know that he/she is the boss. Such a waste of time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:REFUND into sandbox

Hello, would you refund Template:SRRFA in to my sandbox, please and thank you. I'd like to know the code used for the wikiproject...Listawan (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done I have restored it to User:Listawan/sandbox/SRRFA, Listawan. Please understand that you should not move it into template space, or use it outside your own userspace, without consulting Plastikspork, the admin who deleted it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I've been busy with real-life and wanted to check the debate with Template:Must See TV Thursday today but it has been closed. Would you refund it into User:Listawan/sandbox/Must See TV Thursday or something similar? Many many thanks.Listawan (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

CSD...

As to the speedy deletion criterion stated by you in G12 of Episode 101 michelle pfeiffer, doesn't this in lay-man terms state that the content is available without concerns of copy-vio breach?(May-be what was absent was just an attribution statement!)Pardon me, if I'm wrong somewhere!I'm not saying that the page be restored!I've not even viewed it!This's actually meant to get a grasp on valid concerns of copy-vioThanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 15:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I may have made an error, Winged Blades of Godric. I had thought that wikia content was under an incompatible license, but it seems that was incorrect. It may be that an attribution statement, including a source link, would have been enough to deal with the copyright issue. I wasn't as meticulous as I might have (and should have) been here because if not speedy deleted, this would have been PRODed or sent to AfD as an unwanted near-duplicate and expansion of content we already have in the proper place. The page has a soemwhat tangled history. An editor tagged it wiht {{db-nocontext}}. I found it when patrolling Category:CSD, Of course, the names of the Muppet characters gave it context, so i declined that speedy. Then I looked at the list of Muppet Show episodes, and not finding the episode there, thought it was a fake episode summary, and tagged it for speedy deletion as a hoax. Another editor correctly pointed out that it was from the Muppets Tonight show instead, and used PROD because it had essentially duplicated the content from the list item. Then yet another editor pointed out that it was a copy&paste from wikia, and flagged it as a copyvio. A bot reverted that, apparently because it reverts insertions of links to wikia automatically. I reverted the bot, and then deleted as a copyvio. Now that I think of it, I could have speedy-deleted under A10. So one way or another this was gone.

But for the future, I think a proper source and attribution statement would be enough for text copied from wikia, provided that the text itself was suitable, which it sometimes but rarely would be. Thanks for pointing the issue out.

On further thought, I may have been recalling when Wikipedia was still under the GFDL, and wikia was already under CC, and those were not compatible. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

A7

You were absolutely right about Norman Foster Foundation--I failed to check whether he was a notable architect--and it turns out he's more than notable--famous. But for others I think we interpret claim of significance a little differently. But that's why I never delete single-handed. DGG ( talk ) 19:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Neither do I, DGG. I only delete pages that someone else has tagged -- except for copyvios, attack pages, and the like. Otherwsie I tag for another admin to review. As for a claim of significance, to me an statement that, if sourced and proved accurate would establish notability, or that might plausibly lead to facts which would establish notability is a claim of significance. For example, being the CEO of a moderate sized company does not establish notability. But it is quite likely to lead to facts which would, so it is a claim of significance. Having a record released on a major label does not establish notability. But it leads to notability often enough that it is a claim of significance, as i see it. I always go into an A7 looking for any possible claim of significence. If I am in doubt about a claim, i tend to decline. Speedy deletion should be only for crystal clear cases, after all. I find that I decline perhaps half of the A7s I review, and more than half of the U5s, and the no-context tags. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I try to use a criterion that does not mention notability -- that the subject is one that a person who understand the purpose of our encyclopedia would reasonably think suitable. I decline fewer A7s than you, but I agree that no context is much over-used. As for userspace, the criteria seem to be still evolving: I could argue for being either flexible or strict about them. I reconize that I was feeling less patient than usual last night. DGG ( talk ) 20:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

DGG, we all have our moments of patience and impatience. Perhaps my "favorite" no-context speedy tagging was this , and this for "empty". Both went on to be properly sourced and appear on the main page via WP:DYK. Or look at the article discussed in the section just above this. It was a plot summary from an episode of Muppets Tonight, but because it didn't actually say that in big bold letters, I suppose, it was tagged for no-context speedy earlier today. One would think that the name of "Kermit the Frog" which did appear, would have been a clue. Sometimes I want a clue-stick.

My real if usually unstated question with A7s is "Is this likely to turn into a valid article if a serious effort is made to source it." If the answer is either "Yes" or "maybe" I am inclined to decline if i can find a claim to hang my hat on, so to speak.

Thanks, by the way, for your very handsome admission of error at the start of this thread. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks and a consultation

Hi, thank you very much for you advice in the TeaHouse and for participating in the AfD of Nancy Ruth. I would like to communicate with you privately, is it possible? It is important.--Ane wiki (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Ane wiki, you may use the "Email this user" feature, which will take you to <https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:EmailUser/DESiegel>. You should be aware that this will show me the email associated with your Wikipedia account. You should also be aware that I do not absolutely promise to keep the contents of such an email confidential. That will depend on my judgement of the content. If there is a good reason for things to stay confidential, I will keep them so, but Wikipedia business should normally be dealt with on-wiki, and be conducted off-wiki only when there is a very good reason. If I am to act on anything you tell me, it may need to be disclosed, depending on the exact content. If it is merely a matter of advice, no disclosure should be required. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Michael Repoulis Article

Hello DESiegel, Please have a look at my article 'Michael Repoulis'. I've been trying to include it in wikipedia but without much success. Can you please help me complete this article, Thank you!Dance of a Nymph (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Oleg Bezuglov for deletion

Dear David,

Could you, please, take a look at the Oleg Bezuglov article and consider expressing your opinion/advice in discussion on whether it should be deleted or not. It was nominated on suspicion of not passing the WP:MUSICBIO criterion. The discussion is currently dead in the water, and I'm afraid it might be relisted again because of that. Thanks in advance! Fiddler11 06:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

HomeSail Page deletion

An edit has been made on HomeSail stating that it appears to be about a company, corporation or organization, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia.

I will definitely try to write the importance of HomeSail this time. Is it possible if you can restore my page ?

Fjamal89 (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Very well, Fjamal89, the page has been restored to User:Fjamal89/drafts/HomeSail and you may edit it there.

there are several things you need to do promptly:

1. If you are in any way affiliated with HomeSail, you have a conflict of Interest and must declare it openly. You should read the conflict of Interest page, and follow its suggestions. If you are being paid, or expect to be paid, for editing the article, or are doing it as part of your job, you must declare this as specified in Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. This is an absolute requirement.
2. You must find WP:independent published reliable sources that discuss HomeSail in some detail, and cite them in the draft. This will help establish its notability. The content of the draft should be based largely on what is said in those sources. Company sources may be used for uncontroversial facts, such as the date of founding, company statistics, or company mission statements, but not for opinion or judgement issues. See Referencing for Beginners on how to cite sources on Wikipedia. See our guideline on notability of companies for more about the kinds of sources needed.
3. You must edit the draft so that it sounds like a factual description of Homesail, not even slightly like an advertisement for it.

If you have questions, feel free to ask me on this page, or to post at the Teahouse.

In future, please do not remove posts from my talk page, once you have placed them there. If you wish to indicate that you have changed your mind, you may strike parts you wish disregarded. Besides, it doesn't work: all your changes are in the history, and when I see multiple changes but only one message, i will check each edit in the history. Many other editors will do the same.

In the post you deleted, you spoke of "we" doing certain things about the article. In case you didn't know, each Wikipedia account should be for one and only one person, and is not ever to be shared. If you have friends or associates involved in the editing process, each of them should create a separate account, and it might be a good idea to declare the association on your respective user pages.

Please do not move the draft back to the main article space. Instead, when you think it is ready, click the blue "Submit" button, and an experienced editor will review the draft and move it for you if s/he thinks it is ready.

I hope this is all helpful. Happy editing. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I am very much new to wikipedia so not sure about the rules and regulations. I am a employer of HomeSail and doing it as a part of my job. I am wondering, how can I declare my conflict of interest ?Fjamal89 (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

In that case, you should place a {{connected contributor (paid)}} template at the top of the talk page of the draft, and place the template {{paid}} on your user page, (User:Fjamal89)

The first is filled out like this:

{{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=InsertName|U1-employer=InsertName|U1-client=InsertName|U1-otherlinks=Insert relevant links, such as relevant affiliations, disclosures, article drafts written by paid editors, or diffs showing paid contributions being added to articles.}}.

The second might be filled out like this:

{{paid|employer=HomeSail|talk=yes}}

Most of this is described in Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and pages linked from there.

Your employer needs to understand that neither you nor they will control the article if it is accepted. Anyone may insert content, and if it is supported by reliable sources, it will stay, even if it is negative. (See No ownership of Articles.) Nor can you control whether the article is initially accepted or not. If sufficient sources cannot be found and cited, it will not be approved.

I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I am doing this as a part of my job but I am currently working on an unpaid basis as we don't have that much budget. Let me know if I still need to mention anything. Fjamal89 (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

If it is part of your job, and will affect your eventual employment status or conditions, Fjamal89, including your salary or evaluation, even if not currently paid directly, you should consider it to be a paid contribution, and disclose just as if you were getting cash in hand for the editing. Interns assigned to edit Wikipedia are also considered "paid" even if they receive no cash payment. The pressures and incentives are much the same. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I need your consult . . .

About four years ago you were very helpful with regard to helping my students write an entry in Wikipedia style. I believe one was actually accepted.

I have since completed my Ph.D. and been published several times in academic journals and the trade press.

The subject of my new book is currently being misrepresented in his Wiki entry. I would like to see that corrected.

I have been told that the author himself has attempted to correct the record in the past, but was denied.

The agent representing my new book believes this deserves a second look.

Please advise me on your interest level in seeing this injustice corrected. Thank you. Blessings, Ian PunnettIpunnett (talk) 04:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Ian Punnett. I will be glad to do what I can, but that may be limited. First of all I will need to know what book this is, and what article about it, if any, has been created already (even if it has been deleted). I will need the title and author, and if possible the publisher, publication date, and the ISBN if it has one.

Please remember, however, that Wikipedia does not have articles about every subject that exists. It only has articles about "notable" topics. That is a term of art here: by it we mean subjects that have been written about, in some depth and detail, by independent published reliable sources. Book reviews are ideal when the subject is a book. I would need links or citations to multiple reviews. Can you provide me with all that information? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Please remember that if the book is not notable in the Wikipedia sense, there will not be an article, no matter what I do. Please do not think in terms of "injustice" -- that tends to lead to bad results here. Just think of getting an accurate article.

Also, you speak of "my book" but then of "the author" as someone different from yourself. Can you explain exactly who wrote what? perhaps you contributed a chapter? I hope to hear from you soon. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I hope I am doing this right. I'm a little rusty.

Thank you for reaching back. The entry is for a writer named Charles Pellegrino. He is the author of "To Hell and Back" about the double survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. When the book first dropped from Holt and Co as "Las Train from Hiroshima," it was revealed that he had been hoaxed by a U.S. veteran, which presented an opportunity for atomic bomb apologists to go on a full-scale assault on his reputation. Wikipedia became one of the battle grounds. As the entry stands, almost of his very famous accomplishments (he is the creator of the Jurassic Park Recipe and much of the source material for the movie Titanic, author of a dozen NYT bestsellers) are mentioned, and none are spoken of in detail. After the dust settled on the public beating he got, it was revealed that much of the "story" had just been online rumors that had been reified by the NYT and others. Although there were a handful of errors in Pellegrino's book, they were easily corrected and the book was reissued in time for the 70th anniversary of the tragic events after having been vetted by the prestigious Rowman and Littlefield associated with Cornell. In the past, when others have tried to update Pellegrino's page, I am told, it has been taken down and reverted back to the incomplete, misleading biography that remains. Can you advise on getting this corrected, and not allowing online mischief makers that still have it out for this guy to keep it the way it is? Thank you. Ipunnett (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, Ipunnett, I must say that this is not the sort of thing that I expected. I supposed that there would be a book of borderline notability, or one where sources were being ignored in a deletion discussion. There is no serious question that Charles R. Pellegrino is notable. He has and will continue be the subject of an article. The issue is the content. After reading the article and its talk page, it is clear that the controversy is well-sourced. If you want to introduce an account of the reissue of Last Train from Hiroshima (as To Hell and Back) with a statement that the incorrect content has now been removed, it will require impeccable independent published reliable sources. This was tried last year and reverted in this edit, correctly. The writer of a forward to a new edition of a book is not an independent source for the quality and reliability of that book, in general. You would need to find and supply published accounts by scholars or subject-matter experts who have reviewed the reissued book and state that the inaccurate content has been fully corrected, I would think. Do look at Talk:Charles R. Pellegrino#RfC: PhD issue as well as the previous section with the increasingly agitated comments from the editor Redslider (who i am not linking because i don't want to alert). I am not going to be another Redslider, and you would be well advised not to do so either. Only sources of at least as high a reputation as the NYTimes are going to be of any value here. Multiple sources, at that. I will be happy to review and advise on such sources, if you wish. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand, and I am fully committed to working this out. Funny you should mention the NYT because Pellegrino sued them twice and won, but none of that is represented. Okay, let me sit on this for a few days so I don't waste your time. Trust me, the Wiki entry does not do this story justice or Pellegrino. Would you be willing to look at the manuscript, or know somebody who would?Ipunnett (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC) Punnett

No I wouldn't, Ipunnett because it would be pointless. Wikipedia runs on published sources, adn a manuscript isn't published, and neither would my analysis of it be. You need someone independent of Pellegrino who has looked at the manuscript, or better at the revised version of the book as published, and has published conclusions, perhaps in a review of the revised version. Really, there should be several such published reviews, from different sources. If it isn't published, it is of no relevance to Wikipedia. Similarly, was there news coverage or other independent secondary coverage of the lawsuits -- not court records? If there was, they could perhaps be mentioned in the article, but only if such coverage can be cited as a source. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand. I have documentation on everything. The Wiki entry does not even credit him properly for things that are not disputed (and the NYT fully credits him for), an indication of who has had control of the wheel, I am afraid. Okay, I'll step back, line up my ducks. When the time comes, to whom should I present the documentation for these needed corrections?Ipunnett (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Brilliant post

Your reply at WP:Teahouse#how do i prevent speedy deletion? is really very good. That 7-point explanation could be really useful as a "standard" reply. Would you consider putting it into a template? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Dodger67. Making that into a template is on my todo list, and has been for a couple of weeks. I have a copy sitting in a sandbox now. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Have a look at {{Steps to Article}}, Dodger67 and please tell me what you think. Feel free to use this as and when you think proper. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Very nice, the optional parameters are a great touch. I fixed a couple of typos. I think it's good to go, you should probably introduce it at the Teahouse and Help desk talk pages. {{7STEPS}} could be a good shortcut/alias. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Solution-Soft Draft Support

Just wanted to say thank you for the support in my draft being flagged for deletion. You voted for a strong keep and I've got two others that have nominated to keep it as well. I understand that 7 days after being flagged for deletion the page will be deleted - is that accurate? Or does your support get taken into account with the final review/moderator who would make the deletion final? Thanks again for the help.Bayareaeditor (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

hello, Bayareaeditor. No that is not accurate. At least 7 days after the deletion discussion was started (it could be longer), an uninvolved admin or experienced editor (one who has not commented in the discussion) will review the discussion. That editor will weigh the arguments, including how strong they are as well as how closely they align with Wikipedia policy. When the matter is a judgement call, numbers will also be taken into account. The closing editor (or closer) will determine a result, such as "Keep", "Delete", "No consensus", or "Redirect". If and only if the closer determines that the consensus was to delete then the page will be deleted. Even that is not a bar to recreating a better version with better sources. If better sources exist, that is. Note that it is still not too late to add any better sources that you can find and then mention that you have done so in the deletion discussion. You are not barred from giving your views there. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

In this case, Bayareaeditor, the nominator has not provided any evidence beyond assertion that the article was "spammy", and that may not weigh very heavily with the closer. Also, when no one but the nominator supports deletion, closers often look askance at the nomination. But you never know what a closer will do. Or who may comment yet before the close. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Robertgombos (talk) 04:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Robertgombos. I received and read your email. It could, and should, have been posted right here. However I will reply a touch vaguely. If you choose to declare your conflict of intreest openly, on the talk page of the draft, or on your own user page, or both You may add sources to the draft. (Use {{connected contributor}} on the draft talk page and/or {{UserboxCOI}} on your own user page.) You may then ask for an AFC review of the draft. From there on things will be up to the reviewer. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, DESiegel. I made the necessary changes, I have never ever done any edits to Jasmine Directory entry, so I hope that I used correctly the {{connected contributor}} tag. When, and if I'll do any edit, I'll modify the UX-EH parameter. Could you please take a look and let me know if I forgot something? Thank you for your time. :) Robertgombos (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Robertgombos, That should be fine. If you prefer, list sources and statements on Draft talk:Jasmine Directory, ping me there or put a note here, and i will evaluate them. and make the edits to the draft if they seem proper. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, DESiegel, will do so.

Hello again, DESiegel. I did as you suggested on Draft talk:Jasmine Directory. When you have a minute, please take a look and evaluate my suggestions. Thank you! Robertgombos (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

DESiegel I (think) am done with the edits, spent my entire day (and last night) doing it. There are a few more sources that I left on Draft talk:Jasmine Directory, however, I don't think they worth being mentioned. I cleaned the draft, removed some statements (somoeone copy/pasted an entire phrase from a source, fixed that as well) and I read everything twice. It sounds totally neutral to me. Also, I cited every statement. I logged in to the IRC channel, someone took a look and said that it looks fine but probably someone else should take a look, as well. So, thank you very much for the guidance and looking forward for your opinion. Robertgombos (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Trevor Engelson

Since you removed my speedy tag from this article, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor Engelson (2nd nomination). Deor (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:Newspapers.com

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T170097

Hello! I'm Cameron11598 and I'm the account coordinator for the Wikipedia Library's access to Newspapers.com. Applications for all Wikipedia Library resources are temporarily closed while we migrate to our new system (similar to an online library card format). For more information please follow the link at the top of the WP:Newspapers.com page where the closure notice is listed. Happy editing! --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 23:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

You can actually apply now and have your application in the queue Here --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 23:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Cameron11598, but that page won't let me log in. I have reported it. It also appears to be using Flow, or something like it, a major disincentive to going there. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, could you provide more details so I can file a phabricator ticket? I'll also ping Samwalton9 and see if he can provide some insight --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Here is a copy of the content of the email I sent as requested on the server failure page:

I tried to visit https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org to sign up for library access. I tried to log in with my Wikimedia single sign on. I got an "Internal server error" after being redirected to <https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/oauth/callback/?oauth_verifier=3cd3782482fa177c8d16e0abc8aa58b8&oauth_token=5222cbd429cf8928dc9cff009a5ba9f4>;

That is all the info i have, Cameron11598. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay I'm going to open a phabricator ticket for it, I'll tag you in the ticket provided you have an account on Phab. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I've opened the task in ticket: T170097 --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Summer Time Shootout

I notice you declined the G3 of this page - it does not actually exist. The link you gave goes to a different mixtape by the same name with a different song list and a different artist. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shine Season Billionaires and the deleted contributions of User:Wanye2004 a probable sock of the user creating this draft. – Train2104 (t • c) 18:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Train2104. But since proving non-existence (as one must to delete as a Hoax) is significantly harder than proving identity (as one must to delete as a copyvio) and as the page Draft:Summer Time Shootout is now tagged for speedy deletion as a copyvio, the difference does not matter much, i think. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

TeamNancy (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Zbyszek Darzynkiewicz membership in the PAN/PAS

Zbyszek Darzynkiewicz. I greatly appreciate your help. to have the page even more accurate I would like to add the "needed citation" [(7); (PAN) but I am not allowed]. How should I proceed with the minor corrections not the accuracy (not a new lines listing honors).Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)"'"I have added new source for the membership in Polish Academy of Sciences =http://czlonkowie.pan.pl/czlonkowie/sites/Wydzial.html?typ=3&department=5 . Hope this is OK now Thanks again ZbyszekZbigniew Darzynkiewicz (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz I have added the citation in this edit to the PAS article, and in this edit to the article about you. You can always suggest changes on the article talk page, and use {{request edit}} to ask another editor to review the suggestion and make the change. Truly minor changes, particularly if supported by a source, you may make directly, but please explain what you are doing in the edit summary, and perhaps also on the talk page of the article. If anyone objects or reverts, please post on the talk page of the article, rather than reverting. See our guideline on conflict of interest for more details. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Please do place new topics into new threads on talk pages.

Please let me know why the whole section Research highlights, which is much more important than my "honors" has bed deleted by Jytdog. These highlights are now known worldwide - my articles were cited already nearly 44,000 times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz (talk • contribs) 20:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz, you would have done better to ask Jytdog directly. The removal was done in this edit with teh edit summary of Research highlights: moving to talk - see there, and in the new section on Talk:Zbyszek Darzynkiewicz named "WP:OR or unsourced" Jytdog's comment began: The following is either unsourced or is WPL:OR, analyzing primary sources and making claims about them, that are not supported by the source itself. Moved here per WP:PRESERVE. Per WP:BURDEN please do not restore without finding independent reliable sources, checking the content against them, and citing them, and ensuring that this content has appropriate WP:WEIGHT in the article overall. That seems fairly clear, the content was removed from the article because there was not a valid source to support it. Please provide proper sources to support this content, or discuss on the article talk page why you think such sources are not needed. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I am preparing the support evidence for each point presented under the Research Highlights.Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Very good, Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz. Please understand that these should be/use independent, secondary sources. One editor thinks that the "portrait" article, already cited, will be sufficient for the purpose. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of The Ismaili Centre, Burnaby

Hi there User:DESiegel! (And User:Arthistorian1977, who nominated the page for deletion.) Thanks for your hard work keeping Wikipedia tidy. The new page on the Ismaili Centre, Burnaby had also caught my eye and I was planning to work on it, but you deleted it before I had a chance to comment or edit. I thought the entry did contain a credible claim to significance (that the Ismaili Centre was the first Ismaili Jamatkhana in Canada). Moreover, a quick search for 'Jamatkhana Burnaby' in scholar.google.com shows that it has been discussed in at least a dozen academic publications, so there's an obvious case that it is notable. I see that Ismaili Centre, London has a flourishing entry. In deference to whoever created the page, I'm planning to put a new one together that clearly meets notability requirements. There's no particular need to undelete the lost page, as it didn't contain information that I can't get elsewhere. I just wanted to post (a) to avert another speedy deletion and (b) because it looked like the entry was made by someone very inexperienced with Wikipedia, and I just want to suggest that in this case we could have been more supportive of their efforts, to encourage them to more sophisticated contributions in future. Alarichall (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Alarichall. I see that you are a well-experienced user. As you probably know, it is not uncommon for a new article to be deleted via A7 when it eventually proves notable, and an A7 review does not normally involve searches for additional sources not already in the article.

Take a look through my contributions for "Speedy Declined" and you will see that I am not exactly hot to delete anything i see.

I thank you for undertaking to recreate this article in a better developed and sourced state. I do try to be supportive of new editors, and i often move new articles that are technically subject to A7 deletion to draft space instead, to allow time for a page to be better developed. Maybe i should have done that in this case. Somehow it didn't strike me as very promising, but I would be hard pressed to explain exactly why I thought so.

I would suggest that you consider using draft space yourself, so that no other tagger and admin who did not see this message would be likely to delete the new version before it is fully put together. I am far from the only admin who patrols Category:CSD.

If you want the previous version undeleted and moved to draft, i will be happy to do so. That would preserve the record of the initial editor's contribution, and perhaps give you a starting point. Let me know if you would like that. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift reply. If it's not too much trouble to reinstate the original article, I'm sure that would be nice for the editor. In the meantime, I'm drafting the new article in my sandbox. Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done, Alarichall. The former article is now at Draft:The Ismaili Centre, Burnaby. It is marked as under the Articles for Creation project, and is therefore subject to deletion if left unedited for 6 months. You or anyone may freely edit it with a veiw to getting it ready for mainspace there. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Restoring like that takes only a few clicks and two short copy&pastes. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Ta! :-)

Grindlay Peerless page amendments

Hello DESiegel, Thank you for reviewing the page and working to help me improve it. I noticed that you deleted the Grindlay Family and Racing sections, as you deem them to be irrelevant to the article as it is about the company. While I agree with you that the page is about the company, the sections you deleted help to flesh out the history and achievements of the company and its associated motorcycle machines. I would argue that these individuals are integral to the creation of the company and its development, and should be included at the bottom on the page. I have now made the separate of the individuals from the company itself clearer by putting them in a notable individuals section. Maybe some of the information needs to be cut down and made more relevant rather than deleted in its entirety? I would kindly appreciate it if you would let me know your thoughts on my recent changes. Thank you. A Fletcher 18/07/27 (AndrewFletcher (talk) 13:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC))

AndrewFletcher, I didn't make that deletion. Maproom did, in this edit. You should address that editor on the matter, or better, open a discussion on the talk page of the article and ping that editor and others who have worked on it. That said, at the moment the coverage of people is significantly larger than the coverage of the company. That is unbalanced and won't do, in my view. A paragraph or two about the people might be justified, or perhaps a separate article and a link, if they are separately notable. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft: James Lechay

Hello Mr DESiegel, Many thanks for your help on this project. In deleting the reference to Who's Who in America you say, "Who's Who is never a reliable source, because anyone can pay to have an entry in place." And according to the Wikipedia article on Who's Who, "In 2005, while owned by News Communications, Inc., publishers of The Hill, The New York Times referred to the 60th edition of Who's Who in America as 'a librarian's Vanity Fair.'" But this was AFTER ownership of the publication changed hands; it was not owned by News Communications in 2001. Also, the Wikipedia entry goes on to say, "Marquis Who's Who claims to require no publication or processing fees from the persons selected as biographees." James Lechay's son has assured me that his father never paid for, or received, a copy of the publication during the years he was mentioned in it. If this source is not allowed, the references to James Lechay's professional history - awards etc - may be hard to document. Regards, GP Ms Georgiane (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Ms Georgiane. Perhaps i was too quick to remove the Who's Who citation. In most cases, however, the body or society presenting an award publishes a list of those who receive the award. That would be the best possible source. It need not be online. However, i will post a question about the reliability of Who's Who on Wkipedia's Reliable Source Notivceboard and see what the editors there think.

Please note that the citations to Tractor, and Cape Cod Modern still need page numbers. I can't supply those.

Please note that the citations to the fa,mi;ly papers should be replaced with a published source, if possible, unless the papers have been published somewhere.

Similarly, has the letter from James Leach to Christine McCarthy been published anywhere? Has it been referred to in a published reliable secondary source? Are the files it is kept in open to the public? If the answer is "No" to all three questions, this is not an acceptable source, and should be replaced by a different one, which would probably mean a different quote. Sources must be available for readers to verify, although they need not be online, nor available without cost.

Please edit to deal with these issues. If the letter has been published, please indicate when and where in the citation.

Thank you for your work on the draft. However, are you being paid for this work? If so, you must disclose it as specified in Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Please feel free to come here with any questions about this draft or anything on Wikipedia, or to ask at the Teahouse, DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Mr DESiegel - Thank you for being open to reconsidering the Who's Who citation. It is the best (maybe the only) more or less complete single source for a list of the places J Lechay exhibited, the museums that own his work, his awards over the years, and the like. I hope the remaining issues raised by you and other editors have been adequately addressed; please let me know what further work needs to be done. Please be assured that I am not being paid by anyone for my contribution to this "James Lechay" project. Regards, GP Ms Georgiane (talk) 00:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Ms Georgiane. I have been waiting for other editors to respond to my inquiry about the usage of Who's Who. So far only one has, DGG, a very experienced editor, who wrote:

Who's Who in America claims to check, but is based upon what the individual reports. Libraries do use it -- see [this Library Journal Review]. I know of no recent formal studies about its accuracy, but see a variety of opinion on Research Gate. I consider it of the same value as an individual bio on their personal web site, which is much less than tan individual's bio on a university or other institutional website.

In this particular case, the information being sourced is insignificant. Everyone in art has led workshops, as have 100s of Wikipedians. Lechay is highly notable, but this is the sort of trivial information I usually remove from a bio, even if impeccably sourced.

I am not sure if DGG was referring to just the list of workshops as "trivial" or to the list of awards also. In any case this discussion from 2008 and this discussion from 2010 are not exactly supportive of the use of Who's Who. There seems to be some evidence that they accept user submissions rather uncritically, even if not for pay as i had thought, and so the value of the source is at best limited. I have been able to source most to the awards, and the more notable exhibitions to other sources. If you want put back Who's Who, with a page number, you may, but I think it is not really needed at this point. (Note that sources should be attached to individual items in a list, or statements in text, not to a section header) DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I was referring just to the workshops as trivial content that should be removed, but there is much else that should be removes: name dropping of other people in her group and friends that there is no evidence that she influenced or was influenced by, adjectives of judgment or praise--every one of this needs an exact source, but there's no reason to use them in the first place in an encyclopedia article. I have an even more important concern: many of the people mentioned have WP articles, and there was no attempt to link to them. The works in collections and awards is sourced to a summary bio at the National Academy Museum and School, but it really needs to say specificlaly what work is included, and be sourced to the catalogs of the individual museums. It is similarly not clear which prizes are significant. , and along with phrases such as "many private collections", this indicates to me a high probability that the article is copied form some other source--which is not permitted--see WP:COPYVIO. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you DGG Actually, i added the National Academy Museum source today while looking for a replacement for the Who's Who cite. I agree that more specific sources would be better, but they are not so easy to find. Particularly for exhibits first accessioned long ago, one might need to travel to the various museums. I might check out the ones in DC, however. Earwig's tool finds the spaniermanmodern site as the best match (at 18%), followed by the National Academy Museum site at under 5%. I think the list of awards came originally from Who's Who, but there is no copyright in a list of facts. I don't think this is a copyright infringement or plagiarism, but I can't say with assurance what offline sources may have been used or copied. Ms Georgiane, you will want to take DGG's comments into account. Do you know whether Daniel Lechay copied directly from any of his sources in creating the initial version of this text? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello DES - I hope and believe the outstanding issues have now been addressed. However, I can't figure out how to simplify the many footnotes listing Who's Who, nor can I get my computer to italicize the names of books and magazines. Can you help me with these edits? Can the page now be placed in Wikipedia proper? Thank you! Ms Georgiane — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ms Georgiane (talk • contribs) 16:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello again Ms Georgian. To place text in italics (in the wiki-source editor) simply place a pair of single quotes before and after the text.

For example: Place a ''Title'' in ''Italics''

will render as

Place a Title in Italics

I am not sure how to do italics in the Visual editor. My advice: never use the Visual editor.

WP:REFNAME describes how to use the same cation in multiple places. The key point is:

The syntax to define a named footnote is:

<ref name="name">content</ref>

To invoke the named footnote:

<ref name="name" />

I will look at the draft now. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Ms Georgian, I have made this series of edits to the draft. I combined duplicate refs and added italics. Please have a look at how this was done for future reference. While DGG is right i the comments above that better sourcing and detail on the collections would be highly desired, I think we are approaching readiness for the article mainspace. Can you supply a page number or page range for the Who's Who listing, please? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh and both you and Daniel Lechay must understand clearly that once published on Wikipedia, neither of you will control the article. Anyone may edit it, and if statements are added that are supported by reliable sources, even if you disagree with them or do not want them published, they will stay. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you DES! I was at a loss as to the duplicate references and the italics. I have added the page reference for the Who's Who citation and will continue to look for better sourcing. Daniel L. and I understand that once the page is published it is available to all. We look forward to seeing it in Wikipedia proper when you believe it is ready and wish to thank you for your very substantial guidance. Regards, Ms GeorgianeMs Georgiane (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Help Republishing Page

I had asked a volunteer to help create a page for a non-profit organization called the Making Headway Foundation (we help children impacted by brain tumors). There was a lot of information on the organization in main stream media that was used and they created a page (https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Making_Headway_Foundation). However, now the pages has all kinds of problems and the person who helped said to contact you. They told me to tell you that I want "to publish it as a connected contributor. The way he helped Jasmine Directory page, help you also". Any help or guidence would be greatly appreciated. Daniel Lipka (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, [[User:Daniel Lipka|Daniel Lipka]]. I see that the page has been moved to Draft:Making Headway Foundation by Justlettersandnumbers on the grounds that it was undersourced and not ready for the main article space. Thre are several things that you should do.

• First read Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guideline.
• Second, place the following template on Draft talk:Making Headway Foundation, replacing the parts in italics with the details that apply to you.

{{Connected contributor|User1=Your username |U1-declared=yes| U1-otherlinks=(Optional) Insert relevant affiliations, disclosures, article drafts or diffs showing COI contributions.}}

• (If you are being paid to create this article, use {{connected contributor (paid)}}instead)
• Third, find and add reliable sources to the article, or provide a list of them on Draft talk:Making Headway Foundation, and use {{Request edit}} to ask someone to add them on your behalf. Alternatively, list them here and ask me to do so. I will check sources and add them if they check out as and when i have time. There is no deadline. To add sources yourself, read Referencing for beginners for instructions.
• Fourth, remove any remaining promotional content, and any content not supportable by sources.
• Fifth, submit the draft for review. Ther emay be several weeks of delay after that, because there are many drafts waiting for review.

I hope this is helpful. Feel free to ask further assistance of me, or to ask questions at the Teahouse where a number of regular editors try to provide helpful answers. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

[I'm not even sure if this is the correct way to respond, but if it is...] Thank you so much for this information, I really appreciate it, although I don't really understand it. I, personally, have a conflict of interest, as I work for the organization. I tried to add in this COI, but I didn't see anywhere to enter it. I'm not trying to do anything sneaky, but I'm not sure how to proceed. There are quite a number of independent sources for information on Making Headway. Here is a list. Thank you so much for assistance. I'm happy to do whatever I can, although this is very new to me. Daniel Lipka (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• Financial Information, Non-profit status, etc: https://www.guidestar.org/profile/13-3906297
• Mission, History, Programs: http://theinsidepress.com/making-headway-foundation-chappaqua-parents-on-a-lifetime-mission/
• Medical Grants: http://chappaqua.dailyvoice.com/news/greeley-football-walks-for-chappaqua-charity/448723/
• Research Grants: http://theinsidepress.com/making-headway-foundation-approves-over-350000-in-grants-to-help-children-with-brain-tumors/
• Events: http://www.westchestermagazine.com/Westchester-Magazine/Westchester-Home/Summer-2008/Making-Headway-In-A-Chappaqua-Garden/
• Programs: https://www.aan.com/Fellowship/Home/ListingView/562?searchString=1%7C%7C%7C81%7Cname
• Board Member/Founder: https://patch.com/new-york/chappaqua/maya-manly-is-new-castles-woman-of-distinction-choice
• Guidestar Level: https://www.guidestar.org/profile/13-3906297
• Great Non Profits Level: https://greatnonprofits.org/org/making-headway-foundation-inc
• Chamber of Commerce Award: http://chappaqua.dailyvoice.com/business/inaugural-chamber-champs-a-success-in-chappaqua/407431/
• Blog Award: http://blog.feedspot.com/brain_cancer_blogs/
• Statistics https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db257.htm
• Quote from “Giving” by Bill Clinton. Pages 150-151. ISBN 978-0-307-26674-3

Thank you Danlipka. That was indeed the proper way to reply to me. I refomatted the list, adding bullets, for better display and easier use. I will look over those sources and see which ones look useful on Wikipedia as soon as I can, probably within 48-72 hours. I have placed he connected contributor notice on your behalf. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help. I see there is an updated draft for review. Should I submit for review? I'm in no rush and greatly appreciate your help. Thank you again.

I wasn't sure how to proceed, so I submitted the draft for review. If there is anything else I should/could do, please let me know. Thank you again for all of your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danlipka (talk • contribs) 13:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The wikipedia page has been rejected twice because there were no changes, but I have no idea what kind of changes are needed? Everything seems to be in order. Any help or guidance would be greatly appreciated.Daniel Lipka (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Draft:James Lechay -- Again

Hello Mr DESiegel - Thank you for being open to reconsidering the Who's Who citation. It is the best (maybe the only) more or less complete single source for a list of the places J Lechay exhibited, the museums that own his work, his awards over the years, and the like. I hope the remaining issues raised by you and other editors have been adequately addressed; I look forward to learning what further work needs to be done. Please be assured that I am not being paid by anyone for my contribution to this "James Lechay" project. Regards, GP Ms Georgiane (talk) 00:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)Ms Georgiane (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Ms Georgiane, See my reply in the section #Draft: James Lechay above. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Seattle Department of Transportation

Can the article be moved back to draftspace? It's nowhere near complete (still tons of bulleted notes, rather than prose), and I've yet to get around to working on it. The original move by another use was done without consulting the major contributors and should have not been done. SounderBruce 00:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Sorry, SounderBruce, it looked plausible on a quick veiw and i thought your G6 speedy on the obstructing article was because you were ready for it to be moved. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action, and sorry for using the template in the first place. Twinkle is quite limited in letting users explain their deletion rationale. SounderBruce 00:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

No problem, SounderBruce. You can in future just use {{db-G6}} with a more detailed comment on the talk page. I, and most admins, always read the talk page before acting on a speedy deletion. Or you can ping a specific admin you know, or post at the Teahouse or the Help desk, lots of admins follow one or the other or both. Strictly speaking I might have deleted the copy&paste move as a copyvio, since it lacked proper attribution. I will leave a note on the talk page of the editor who did the move. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Mind you, the draft need not be perfect before moving to mainspace, SounderBruce. Once it is good enough that no one would be likely to speedy delete it, or AfD it, and that anyone who did start an AfD would find it rapidly kept, and a reader could get some use out of it, it can be moved to the main article space. You might get more contributors there. But I won't insist. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

More on Draft:James Lechay

Hello DES,

In answer to your question about James Lechay and Who's Who, I did copy the lists from Who's Who in America, 2001 edition. They were supplied by my father and I am quite sure they are accurate. Although he was not interested in Who's Who and never owned a copy, he did consider it a serious reference work; they sent out a form once a year which he completed faithfully to keep his information up to date.

Thank you. DL Daniel Lechay (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Daniel Lechay for letting us know. That should not be a problem. Were any other sections of the text copied directly from some outside source? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello DES - No, the only thing copied are the lists from Who's Who discussed above. Thanks - DLDaniel Lechay (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Daniel Lechay . DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

User talk:TRISHA DESIGN

This edit Not the case. Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 16:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:DELTALK says:

User talk pages and user talk archives created by page move are generally not deleted; they are usually needed for reference by other users. Individual revisions, log entries, and other user space material may be deleted or redacted for privacy reasons, or because of harassment, threats, gross offensiveness and other serious violations. Exceptions to this can be and are made on occasion for good reason. In addition, nonpublic personal information and potentially libelous information posted to your talk page may be removed as described above.

Now Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, I may have been, in summarizing the above for an edit summary, a bit too positive, but user talk pages are almost never deleted. Indeed I can't recall ever deleting one or seeing one deleted. I agree that this one contained spam. I could revdel that if you like, but since the user won't be editing again I thought that simply blanking it would be sufficient. Do y7ou really feel that it wasn't? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree; I think that the operative phrase there is probably "usually needed"- emphasis on usually. Talks with no previous history are not neccesary to keep, going by WP:UP#DELETE, "However, unambiguous... promotional text... can be speedy deleted." I understand that a difference in operating philosophies may exist between us; mine is perhaps moulded by [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], etc! See my point? But I do see yours, and apologies if my original message read as slightly peremptory Take care! — fortunavelut luna 18:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I see, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. I took the operative phrase to be "generally not deleted" with "generally" glossed as "except under highly unusual circumstances". I think that I would have used blanking or revdel for all of the cases you link to, but they do show that such deletions are, on occasion, done. Would you like a revdel in this case? I would be happy to do one.

And I was not in any way upset by your message. Any time I perform an admin action, I am ready to hear reasons why it was not proper, or should have been done differently, and respond to them, possibly undoing or modifying the action.

I would, however, like to ask that a bare URL not be used as a section header -- it doesn't display a meaningful header, even though it takes one to a meaningful place when clicked. I have adjusted this one. Thanks. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Chorley

You have added a failed verification tag. Since the web page title is the name of the temple, I must have missed the point. Can you give further details as to the propblem please? Op47 (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Op47 At the time I added the fv tag, the sentence read The temple, whic is regarded as a local landmark[19], is the largest temple in Europe and named the Preston England Temple.[20] The phrase "is the largest temple in Europe" was therefore at that moment being cited to https://www.lds.org/church/temples/preston-england?lang=eng which did not support it. I see that since a separate cite for that phrase has been added, making the fv tag either unneeded or misplaced. Does that explain what I was doing more clearly? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I have now removed the fv tag. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou, alls well that ends well Op47 (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Update to Eugene O'Neill NHS page

Hi, DESiegel. I just now from your talk page found out the proper code to ping you in a comment. I couldn't find how to cite a previous commenter when I was responding to your offer to update the EUON page here on Wikipedia. That discussion has now been archived, so I can't ping you from it, hence this note on your personal page. Hope it works. Please let me know if you need any more information from me. Thanks!

Bayguy42 (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Follow-up to message on help desk

I am redirecting species without pages to their genera, adding {{R with possibilities}} and {{R printworthy}} for when pages can be created for those species. Galactikapedia 04:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, Galactikapedia. Given the numbers and rate that you are doing page creations, I think this is right on the edge of needing a Bot approval from WP:BRFA. See WP:MASSCREATION and consider whether you should ask for such an approval. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I will check it out, DESiegel. Galactikapedia 04:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Looking at Comatricha makes it clear what Galactikapedia is doing: working alphabetically down the list of species, converting redlinks to circular bluelinks. I don't know whether WP policy regards this as constructive. Maproom (talk) 08:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know of any policy on the point, Maproom, although circular links are often regards as unwise. (See WP:SELFREDIRECT.) But I believe that there is a long-standing consensus, if not a policy, that creating more that roughly 50 articles per day is acting like a bot, and requires approval as if one were running a bot. This consensus is expressed at WP:MASSCREATION. That is what it seems to me Galactikapedia has been doing, with over 500 new redirs in a single day. The consensus was originally formed over the semi-automated creation of short stubs, but I don't see how a "Redirect with possibilities" is so very different. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 08:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I see now that another user, doing the same thing for another genus, asked about it at the Teahouse today, and was discouraged by Timothyjosephwood. Coincidence? Maproom (talk) 08:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

In some ways it is an obvious notion, Maproom, and there is a difference between one article and 500. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 08:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

That's... actually really unhelpful. I've been poking around flowers, because Commons, and there are thousands (millions?) of redlinked species still on the project. They kindof need to stay that way because it shows the holes we need to fill. Not having a redirect isn't terrible because the search engine basically always pulls up the Genus as the first hit when there's no species. So... these may likely need to be mass undone. TimothyJosephWood 10:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Joining from the Help Desk, where I misinterpreted DESiegel's comment, and I failed to consider the behaviour fell under WP:MASSCREATION. (Sorry about that.)

Mass-creation issues notwithstanding, I think turning the redlinks of (at least) Comatricha and List of geological features on Venus into {{R with possibilities}} are still a good idea, but the (now blue) redlinks should be unlinked. It was IMO a bad idea to have that many redlinks in the first place and the redirects are a better replacement. As I see it, a redlink is "we should have an article about this", which in the context of parent articles means "we should have a standalone article about this", while a {{R with possibilities}} is more of a "maybe we could have an article about this". In those two cases, it is highly improbable that whatever may be written about the subtopics could not be developped (at least at the beginning) on the parent page. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

User page patrolled

m sorry but I don't understand why my userpage would be marked as patrolled: marked revision 791806554 of page User:FIGHTER KD patrolledFIGHTER KD 23:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FIGHTER KD (talk • contribs) 19:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, FIGHTER KD. That simply means that an experienced editor looked at your page and did not find any problems with it. (It may have been me as I looked at uyour page after reading your post on the Teahouse) This is done so that the New Page Patrol (who check out new pages for vandalism, spam, and other problems) know that they can safely skip the page, because it has been looked at. They have far too many pages to check, so any time that one can be removed from the list, it should be. The message should be made clearer, as it can seem like the report of a problem. It isn't. It is a report of lack of problems. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

By the way, when posting on someone else's user talk page, you should usually create a new section if you are opening a new topic, and you should always sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). The software will convert these into your standard or custom signature. If you did sign, than you must have customized your signature to not include a link to your user page or user talk page. As mentioned in Wikipedia:Signatures (in the Internal links section) Signatures must include at least one direct internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page; this allows other editors easy access to your talk page and contributions log. The lack of such a link is widely viewed as obstructive. Please be aware of this. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying! I tried to add the new section and clicked the link at the top but for some reason it would not take my topic, i tried several times and ended up having to post it here, i apologize for that. Since you did look at it, does that mean the special:contributions tag will be removed or is that a waiting game?FIGHTER KD 23:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FIGHTER KD (talk • contribs)

Do you mean Special:Contributions/FIGHTER_KD, FIGHTER KD? That is not a tag, it is merely the way in which one links to the contributions of a user. It renders as Special:Contributions/FIGHTER_KD. You will see that Special:Contributions/DESiegel is included in my signature, and is posted every one of the many times I have signed a talk page post. It is nothing to worry about, many signatures include it. But if you want to stop seeing Preceding unsigned comment added by... after your posts, fix your signature to include a link to your user or user talk page as I mentioned above. Without those it is not recognized as a valid signature. See Help:How to fix your signature for more details. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:09, 30 July 2017 (UT) ok thanks I totally misread the meaning of thatFIGHTER KD 00:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	I wanted to give you a special barnstar for offering to mentor me, and enabling me to remove the adopt me tag on my profile! Thank you for adopting me! FIGHTER KD 01:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, FIGHTER KD, that means a great deal to me. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Just FYI, they are now indeffed as a confirmed sock. I'm removing the two (!) barnstars they awarded me 3 minutes apart. Cheers. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not, Mandruss. i do not yet accept the sock finding, and even if I do after further review, I do not accept that there nothign but bad motives on the part of this user. I plan to retain this barnstar permanently. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I was only conveying what I'm doing, not suggesting that you should do the same. If you want to take on that cause, good for you. I usually lack the energy to go after what I consider bad admin calls (and it does matter that I have no status around here). ―Mandruss ☎ 05:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

(BTW, I wasn't aware of the action at ANI until now.) ―Mandruss ☎ 05:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• Hello, sorry about the random comment. I've been monitoring this account as well from the beginning, and combined with evidences provided it was a fair call I thought. But the notion of this situation was somewhat unnerving, if that was the sentiment you were expressing. Great admiration for your work at teahouse as always. Regards, Alex Shih^Talk 07:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Declining unblock

Hi DESiegel. You recently declined an unblock appeal at User talk:TES Media, a user whom you blocked yesterday. While I agree entirely with your reasoning and endorse the decline of the appeal, WP:BLOCK is clear that admins should not decline the appeals of users whom they themselves have blocked ("Since the purpose of an unblock request is to obtain review from a third party, the blocking administrators should not decline unblock requests from users they have blocked."). Just bring this to your attentions so you're aware of it in future. Cheers, Yunshui ^雲_水 09:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Yunshui. I don't do very many unblocks, so I forgot that provision. Should i take this to AN for confirmation, do you think? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Probably not worth the hassle - like I said, I fully agree with your response and I can't imagine any other admin would have done any different. Technically it doesnt fall under the letter of WP:INVOLVED, but I think the spirit of that policy applies; if any other admin would have done the same thing, then it does no harm. You can run it up at AN if you want; I'll support your actions there if you do, but I don't think it's necessary. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

James Lechay continued

Thank you DES! I was at a loss as to the duplicate references and the italics. I have added the page reference for the Who's Who citation and will continue to look for better sourcing. Daniel L. and I understand that once the page is published it is available to all. We look forward to seeing it in Wikipedia proper if and when you believe it is ready and wish to thank you for your very substantial guidance. (I wasn't sure whether to place this at the bottom of comments about this particular project or at the bottom of this entire page.) Regards, Ms Georgiane Ms Georgiane (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ms Georgiane While there is more that can and should be done, I have moved the page to James Lechay. It is now in the main Wikipedia space. Congratulations.

One thing that would be useful would be to check the websites of major museums where Lechay's work is in the catalog to find specific sources for what they each have. Another is to find some published critiques of his work that we could reference and quote brief passages from. Also, do you have a picture of Lechay that we could use to head his article? Something that Daniel L holds the copyright to, perhaps, or whose owner would release? Are there published images of his work that are free of copyright, or perhaps might be used under fair use? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Daniel Lechay: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello DES - That's great news. We do have reviews of his shows from art magazines but thought they would be rejected as self-serving. We'll post one or two and see if they are acceptable. We will also find photos of him and of his work, and will continue to find better sourcing to document that his work is in collections of the various museums. Again, thank you. Regards, Ms Georgiane (talk) 13:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Ms Georgiane As long as such reviews are from independent and Reliable sources, they are some of the best sources available. They should go in a "Critical response" section, after the biographical sections and before the lists of awards and collections. The actual reviews should be cited as sources, just like the other sources. Use one or two short quotes from each, optionally plus a paraphrased summery of the review. Something like:

Joe Bloggs, writing in Modern Art Reveiws said "Lechay's latest work <title> particularly shows his characteristic 'Impressionist' style".<citation to Modern Art Reveiws here> Blogs went on to discuss How Lechay had been influenced by <artist1> and <artist2>, and in turn influenced <artist3>.<Repeated citation here>

Don't forget to give the publication date, and page numbers if the source is paginated. Give a link if the source is available online.

On photos, copyright issues arise. Be sure that you know and indicate who took the photo, and when, and who now holds the copyright if it isn't the original photographer. Images of the actual art should ideally be used in a section where that specific piece of art is discussed, with sourced commentary. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Mynhub

Hi, I see you removed my A7 tag for db-web and replaced it as a hoax however it exists and is indeed a shopping website, it's just not significant or notable. See here. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Really, Chrissymad? I tried to find it online, to evaluate if it should be expanded or deleted, and could not, and thus concluded it was a hoax. See my comment on the talk page. What is the link, please? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

DESiegel See my previous edit which includes the link to their Twitter. It should be deleted, no doubt but I don't think G3 applies. It most definitely exists to the extent that anything else does, it's just totally unremarkable. A quick google search will show this. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay I'm a bit more confused now - how does this not qualify for an A7 (web) per your ES here? It's neither significant or notable, so undoubtedly qualifies. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Chrissymad I think a case can be made for the actual business being at least significant, but I haven't made it yet. But this article is only about a nickname. Nicknames are not one of the limited set of A7 categories. Even a web-based business is arguably not "web-content" in the way A7 intends -- that sub-section of A7 has always been a bit confused in my view, and is often used far too broadly. Still if you or someone else decided to re-tag it as an A7, I won't revert. But the PROD ought to be enough, don't you think? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Teahouse Discussion of Periods in College Degrees? (BA) vs. (B.A.) Reply

Mr. Siegel: Thanks for your response in the Teahouse, in which you posted the following: 2422889236x, according to MOS:ACRO, Acronyms are abbreviations formed, usually, from the initial letters of words in a phrase. It includes in its definition of "acronym" such examples as FBI and EU. It also says Common exceptions to this rule [of usually providing the expansion on first use of an acronym] are post-nominal initials because writing them out in full would cause clutter. thus clearly indicating that post-nominal initials are considered acronyms for purposes of the MOS. There is nothing here about an initalisim having to be a word to be considered as an Acronym. I think that RfC is going to be needed. (@John from Idegon, JocularJellyfish, and Safiel: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I answered you, but I do not want to post this in the Teahouse topic, as I've been sent a notice on my talk page that my comments have been creating confusion and bewilderment there. In any case, that is why I am contributing my reply here, for whatever it's worth:

@DESiegel: Absolutely. Apparently this is an issue that goes beyond Wikipedia. There is international doubt and confusion regarding this issue. I did further research on this as well, after my knee jerk comment above. It seems that although the strict constrained categorization of what are acronyms, is as I set out above, on the contrary, as you also noted, there is wide conflation with "initialisms" and other forms of abbreviations, in which folks will (properly or not) identify odd situations with ancronyms. Also, I found that Wikipedia itself recognizes the issue. I find this in the heading of WP:MOSABBR:

• " ... initialism is usually formed from some or all of the initial letters of words in a phrase. In some variations of English, an acronym is considered to be an initialism which is pronounced as a word (e.g. NATO), as distinct from the case where the initialism is said as a string of individual letters (e.g. "UN" for the United Nations). Herein, the term acronym applies collectively to initialisms, without distinction that an acronym is said as a word. ... "

I would be tempted to say that Wikipedia is incorrectly fusing acronyms and initialisms. I hesitate to say that the Wikipedia standards are not proper though. It doesn't take much research to see that this conflation is widespread, even throughout many dictionary definitions. Too, it seems there is wide recognition of the lack of standardization. I for one, would be glad to support the most stringent standard. However it seems clear now that Wikipedia follows (a well sourced) very loose standard. One of conflation. I apologize if I have made this a more confusing issue that it already is, with my participation in this topic! I am even hesitant to issue this answer, only out of politeness for your respectful reply, do I respond here.
Also, like you, I note that as laid out above, Wikipedia could be construed as supporting both styles of abbreviated nomenclature, with stops and without stops, depending on which part of the style section one peruses. I hope this little answer leads to more clarity and a reduced level of confusion. B'H.
MichaelAngelo7777 (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

2422889236x, Do note that the manual of style is intended to describe what styles should and should not be used in Wikipedia articles, and when. In a sense it cannot be "wrong", as what is correct for Wikipedia articles is defined by the MOS. However, a consensus of Wikipedia editors can (and has in the past) change parts of the MOS, or clarify them.

I have started an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Abbreviations# RFC: Periods in abbreviations for degrees. Anyone interested in this issue should comment there, please. I hope you will choose to join the discussion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

DESiegel, Thank you so very much for your gracious invitation. I found it intriguing to participate. I'm afraid both my opinion was the oddball and my refutation was very verbose! However, I thought more on the issue, and came to the conclusion, that although the trend to omit full stops from common abbreviations is undeniable, an encyclopedic position should default to the conservative perspective, not the avant-guard. So, I pointed out that Wikipedia is supposed to present an encyclopedic example, thus should promote the most stringent standard. I hope my contribution proves to be well taken. B'H.
MichaelAngelo7777 (talk) 02:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

why have you got my page blocked?

i am user SHV Radio, name Shea what the hell i created that page for my radio station which has been around since 2010-prewsent and is still going strong. so get it unblocked thank you Shea08:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:7869:1F00:3803:647B:F081:87B3 (talk)

oh me again SHVRadio (http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:SHV_Radio?markasread=113617408), my page was not spam or Unambiguous advertising or promotion in userspace, it was about a business i have been running for the last 7 years Southern Hardcore Vibes Radio (A real thing which promotes musicians), i thought wikipedia was online to be an informative site for all things including information on radio stations and there ID and rolls and what they do etc. Am i wrong in thinking this? Hope you saved my page as i do not have it backed up 2A02:C7D:7869:1F00:3803:647B:F081:87B3 (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The page User:SHV Radio was not a Wikipedia article, it was a user page. User pages are intended to describe the person who has a Wikipedia account, particularly to describe what that person does or plans to do on Wikipedia. They are not intended to describe radio stations, or anything else that might be described in an article. See our guideline on user pages

The page included such text as Everyone at SHVR are looking forward to the future and what the next milestones that happen. That would count as promotional in article space as well as on a user page. See our policy on promotion.

Your account was blocked because of this promotional page, but mostly because your user name was the name of the radio station, and therefore implied that it was for editing by a group, not a single person. All Wikipedia accounts must be for a single person only, and none may have the names of groups, businesses, or organizations. See Our user name policy.

If you wish to continue to edit Wikipedia, you must request an unblock on User talk:SHV Radio, providing the new name that you will be using, and indicating an intention to refrain from using Wikipedia to refrain from promotion in the future. No one will unblock the account until you do, and convince an Admin that you mean it. Then you will need to request that new name following the instructions at our page on changing usernames.

Do not edit from an IP address (that is, without logging in). All such addresses will be blocked when this comes to the notice of an Admin. Do Not try to create a new account without asking for an unblock. If this is detected (and it probably will be), it will be blocked and it will be much harder for you to get your original account unblocked.

All pages, including deleted ones, are stored permanently on Wikipedia's servers, "deletion" just means that a page is removed from public access. Once you are unblocked, you can ask for the text at WP:REFUND and it may well be restored if you want to try to create an encyclopedia article about the station. Note that Wikipedia only has articles about notable topics, it is not enough that the station exists, it must have been disussed by independent published reliable sources in some detail.

I hope you will choose to request an unblock. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Offensive username?

Hi,

You blocked this user. It may well be a VOA, but I don't see how the username is offensive. Unless I'm missing something? Adam9007 (talk) 01:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Adam9007 Using "gay" as an adjective to mean "lame" or "undesirable" which seems to be the usage here, is pretty clearly offensive. The user was reported on WP:UAA (which is where I saw it), so at least one other editor found the name offensive. I will admit that had it not been for the vandalism, i would have merely warned and not blocked. If the user chooses to request unblock, that could include an explanation for the name, or a name change request. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Using "gay" as an adjective to mean "lame" or "undesirable" which seems to be the usage here but the name says they're (whichever sense of "trap" is used; I don't know...) not so. I was (perhaps naïvely) taking "gay" to mean happy, which would be the closest to being offensive, but still not really so, as it's merely a statement. Adam9007 (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Adam9007 The implication in the usage I am referring to is via "gay" as a term for "homosexual". Keeping that in mind, saying something like "not having a twitter account is so gay" (which i have heard in person) is meant to imply that 1) there is something bad about being homosexual, and 2) the activity or thing being mentioned is also bad, and so, 3) calling it "gay" therefore marks it as bad. It is possible that this user did not mean the user name in the sense I think s/he did (I rather suspect he). But I think it likely. I have heard and read this usage many times, mostly from males under 30, in the Northeastern US. Perhaps i am mistaken in this case, it isn't as clearcut as some cases are. As I said above, i wouldn't have blocked for the name alone, but want any admin dealing with an unblock request to consider it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah, so "XYZ is not bad" is okay, but "XYZ is not gay" is not, because that usage of "gay" still implies (whether he meant to or not) the "bad" description applies to homosexuals? I knew I was missing something, I mean, I knew "gay" is used as an insult by younger people, but usually by saying something is, rather than is not. By the way, are you saying that all phrases of "xyz so gay" means the pejorative? On my user page, I outright describe it as "gay" (even "so gay"), but then, I know what I meant by it (brightly coloured). The last thing I want is for my user page to be labelled "offensive". Adam9007 (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

As always with slang and informal usage, Adam9007, it can be hard to be sure of the intent. "This scene is so gay with all the colors." is pretty clearly not using the pejorative sense of "gay". Any phrase which uses "gay" as an adjective of disapprobation, more or less equivalent to the older "lame", is in my view using it in the offensive sense, whether it is being used to say that something is "gay" or that something is not "gay". The form "XYZ is gay" does seem more common. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

There was a thread a little while ago about my use of the word "gay". They said that even the "happy" and "colourful" senses can be considered homophobic, even though they have nothing to do with homosexuality. I strongly disagree, but can see how the my user page's original wording can be mistaken by younger people (who may not be aware that "gay" ever meant anything other than "homosexual") for the pejorative. That said, I think the person who started the thread is even younger than me, and he's aware that "gay" means happy, so I don't know... Adam9007 (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

For better or worse, Adam9007, words do change meaning. Perhaps my favorite example is "shrewd". It once meant "shrewish" or "malicious". Now it means "clever" or in some cases "skillful". Tom Shippey has written that he suspects this happened through the common idiom "a shrewd blow" which once meant a blow intended to hurt, a malicious blow, and later meant a blow delivers with sufficient skill to penetrate armor, and thus able to hurt. Other interesting examples:

• "Prove" once meant test. We see a relic of this in the common phrase "The exception proves the rule" -- If you read "proves" as "tests" it makes much more sense. The same is true for "the proof of the pudding is in the eating" -- there is no better way to test a dish than to eat it. Also the first printing of a photograph is a "proof sheet", it tests whether the photo is good. The printings of a book in production are the galley proofs and page proofs, they test if the printing was done correctly. The first firing of a cannon was the "proof firing" -- it tested whether the cannon would blow up. The place where weapons are tested is still a "proving ground". But th4e mathematical and legal meanings of "prove" -- "to demonstrate conclusively" took over all other senses.
• "Shy" once meant "cowardly". It is a common usage from the Napoleonic wars.
• "Amuse" once meant "deceive". "To amuse the enemy" meant to engage in a tactical ruse. Also from the Napoleonic wars period.
• "Address" once meant apparent force of character. "He has such address that all men agree with him promptly." See Jane Austin for several examples.
• "Direction" once meant "address". To learn what to put on an envelope so it would reach John Jones, one would have said "Please let me have Mr. Jones's direction". Now it would be "Give me John's address."
• "Virtual" once meant "real". But via (I think) the optical term "virtual image" (so-called because it seemed to be real and have a physical position) it now means "realistic but unreal" as in "virtual reality".
• "Awful" once meant "filled with awe". Now it mostly means "rotten" or "of very poor quality" .
• "Enthusiast " once meant "inspired person", literally "one with a god within" later it came to mean "a fanatic" as was by no means a term of approval. Now it is milder.
• "Assembly" once meant a public dance.
• "Partner" used to mean exclusively a business associate, not a member of a domestic couple.

I could list many more. As for "gay", the idea that the sexual sense has displaced all other senses is i think an overstatement, but it is now the most common sense and does tend to er color the perception when the word is used in one of the older senses. Perhaps using "gaily" is a wise choice in many cases where the senses of "happy" or "decorative" is meant. Consider the Christmas song "Deck the halls" which includes the line "Don we now our gay apparel" -- many will now see a double meaning where clearly none was originally intended. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I dare say even "gaily" can be misinterpreted, even though it does not mean homosexually (I checked all the main dictionaries). Same goes for gaiety. I was even told in real life that I shouldn't use words like "gay" and "queer" in their original meanings, because they will be misinterpreted. It's funny what's happened to those words hasn't happened to words such as "straight": nobody's afraid to use that word in the senses it had before it meant heterosexual. But anyway, as for words changing meaning, I have been abandoned, I am not gay, there are many queer things going on, and there are many nice people . Adam9007 (talk) 03:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello DES. I wanted to bring up a couple of things related to this issue, even though the user in question has since been blocked. First, I suspect that the use of "trap" in this instance may be the use popular on the #chan sites, where it has the meaning, a person who dresses and behaves in a stereotypically feminine manner but has male genitalia. Obviously that usage is itself offensive. Second, you seem to be unaware that many disabled people (and others) consider "lame" as used to mean "undesirable" to be offensive as well; a decent alternative is "weak". Finally, it might interest you to know that "nice" originally meant "stupid". The more you know... —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 18:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you GrammarFascist. I was not aware of that usage of "Trap", that does pretytr much confirm tha tthe username was offensive. I am aware that "lame" is considered offensive by a number of people, and I wasn't advocating its use, i was merely drawing an analogy to the way in which it was once used (I'm not at all sure it is still common) to mean "uncool". I don't think those who were using it in that sense thought of it as having anything to do with disabled people, although that doesn't make it less offensive, or not much less, at any rate. Most of the slang terms used for that purpose seem to be offensive. I remember when the common slang for that meaning was "retarded", which is obviously offensive, and now very dated. "Weak" never had quite the same usage, at least not in my experience -- slang can be very regional as well as changing rapidly, of course. I am trying hard to think of a (once) widely used slang term with that meaning or a similar one that isn't offensive, and nothing comes to mind more recent than "uncool". Perhaps "that's so last year". I was not aware that "nice" ever meant "stupid", but I don't doubt it. I do know that nice once meant "very particular", even "fussy or picky" as in "A person of nice discrimination" meaning one who makes fine, sharp distinctions. Words are wonderful, aren't they? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Dodgy username

Good morning (or whatever time of day it is in your part of the world!) I'm sorry to bother you but I wondered if you would see and wish to respond to my comment here, or if it is in too much of an out-of-the way and unwatched place?! The user hasn't edited again so it may be irrelevant anyway - and in any case it is probably not the most important issue facing 21st-century civilization right now, so please don't worry too much anyway! Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I responded to your comment on the holding pen, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered. Ye3s that is a rather little-watched page. In future cases a ping would be a good way to draw a specific editor's attention to a comment, pretty much anywhere except that editor's own talk page, or a discussion page where that editor is a frequent poster. One can also use {{tb}} for such a purpose. Twinkle will post talk back templates. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh for your info, I am in the US Eastern Timezone, aka UTC-4 (-5 during "daylight saving time" aka "summer time"). It is now 9:13 in my local time. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks - and so now I really CAN say good morning to you! I'll go and read up on the holding pen thing now, thanks. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Business Initiative Directions for deletion or help

First of all sorry if I'm writing in the wrong place and sorry for my poor English (I'm not an English native speaker) I write to you because you wrote me back. I don't understand the way this website works, but it is extremely harmful and is destroying a small company in Madrid Spain...I must confess I'm and old man, and perhaps because of that I found this site incredible hostile. I write to you because since august someone posted an entry on Business Initiative Directions. It is a Spanish marketing agency that sells different products and services (I have no economic relation with them, except for the fact that the owner is an old friend and an old man like I) I want to be clear on the fact that yes, I know this company, and yes, 30 years ago (or more I don't recall) I worked with them several times. It's a marketing company, but the entry accuse them of selling "fake awards". They don't sell awards at all. They do advertising and corporate events. In their events they charge a fee, this is no secret, neither is illegal in anyway. They have 50 years operating inside Spain and now inside the European Union legal framework. Their HQ is located behind the Ministry of Defense in Madrid... every soul there knows them. They offer international business gatherings, and charge a fee for that (among other things more related to traditional marketing, like flyers, magazines and banners... they don't do digital because most of them are old people that don't even have social media) This article is destroying them... based on nothing at all but the opinion of a company that got the invitation to the event and got mad because they wanted to go to an business convention in Paris for free... this people then wrote to a so called NGO that decided to wage war on this small Spanish marketing agency. They created the Wikipedia post and used all the bad press against the company to destroy their prestige...everybody has bad press... this is not fair, neither I humbly believe, was the idea behind Wikipedia. I think Wikipedia was meant to be an encyclopedia for humanity. Not a corporate revenge instrument. Please, help us and guide us on how to deal with this. My friend is asking me if their version of the post could be taken into consideration. All complains of the NGO are addressed there, and even a mixed version will be acceptable for them, but what is cruel and brutal for this company reputation is to post only the NGO version... that is not fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FernandoSantiago (talk • contribs) 22:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello FernandoSantiago. Wikipedia is not intended to be used to destroy a business, or anything else. Neither is it intended to be used to promote or praise anything. What Wikipedia does is summarize what other people have already written and published in reliable sources. Newspapers are often, but not always, considered to be reliable sources. Once a version of an article exists, and is supported by sources, it will only be changed if different sources are presented that say different things, or perhaps if the original sources prove not to be reliable. What you need to do is list, as precisely as you can, sources which you think should be considered in the article. Do this on the page Talk:Business Initiative Directions. The you can use {{help me}} to ask for help in getting them into the article. Note that blogs and fan sites are not considered relaible, and the company's own site is not independent, and so is of limited value. Note also that your personal knowledge is of not weight unless there is a published reliable source to back it.

Note further that Wikipedia only has articles about what it calls "notable" topics. An editor has suggested that Business Initiative Directions may not be notable. That could lead to a discussion to consider its notability, and if the consensus is that it is not notable, the article would be deleted entirely. The basic remedy is the same, independent reliable sources that discuss the company in some detail, not directory entries or passing mentions. See our guideline for the notability of businesses for more detail. Feel free to ask for additional help from me, or at the Teahouse which is intended to be a friendly place for newcomers to get help. But be aware that no amount of editing will overcome a lack of notability. If the topic isn't considered notable, there will not be an article, no matter what is done.

I hope this is clear. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello DES thanks for your kind response. We added information to the entry with the official page of the Technical University of Madrid (it is third party reliable source) that controls the nomination and selections processes for the company international business gatherings. It's one of Europe oldest and best established universities. We provide reliable sources, of reliable institutions and they keep slamming us and changing the text in the entry by posting blogs and ghost magazines picked up online. Like any company, we have had clients that are not happy with us. We do not want to deny that, or silence them or censure in any way the people that is not happy with what we do. But Wikipedia is a massive and prestigious website that as become an international standard of what is "true" and to post only one side of the history, to post only the bad things about a company on Wikipedia is demolishing. Please let us post our own versions. Or remove the entry, because frankly... we are not Coca Cola, is BID really that important? Thanks and sorry for our clumsiness with your systems and rules, we do not deal with website posting normally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FernandoSantiago (talk • contribs) 10:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

FYI

FYI, your edit got caught while I was reverting something at the help desk. Could you please make it again? Thanks! RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes i saw, RileyBugz, and i have already restored it. You could have done so yourself, by copying it out of the history. In future, it is better to remove unneeded sections than to just revert when other editors' comments are present. It takes a moment longer, but not much longer. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I know, but you added your comment when I was in the process of reverting, so I didn't see it. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Very well, RileyBugz, it happens, no problem, and you notified me at once, so absolutely no problem. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

CassantecAG

Hi DES, I have fixed the changes that you suggested on the pending Cassantec AG page, with additional notable and independent sources. Would you mind taking another look? Thanks so much, Daninguyen0 (talk) 12:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Westworld Request for Comment

FYI, I have opened a RfC on Potential Spoilers for Westworld since consensus was unable to be reached on Bernard. I apologize for not notifying you sooner. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 08:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Topicons

I noticed your userpage displays exactly one topicon but you are eligible for several more especially {{10 Year topicon}} and {{DYK user topicon}}. Just letting you know. Cheers ☆ Bri (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

MA/M.A.

If you revisit that later (the RfC closed as "no consensus"), the fact that academic style guides prefer "MA" and journalism style guides are the ones using "M.A." is probably what to front-load the discussion with. WP's style is based almost entirely on academic style (Chicago Manual of Style, New Hart's Rules/Oxford Style Manual, and Scientific Style and Format are its main bases), and uses virtually nothing from journalism style guides (about the only thing we got from them is MOS:IDENTITY).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC) @Redrose64, Sb2001, SchreiberBike, and Blueboar: – pinging a few other MoS semi-regulars who also expressed an interest.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

NHR is pretty unclear on this (p 178). It is adamant that British English does not take full stops in any form of writing these (supported by journalistic style guides, eg the Guardian (p 23), and internal ones, eg University of Oxford (p 20)), but says, In some US styles certain initialisms may have full points, without specifying the styles to which it is referring. It goes on to write 'Ph.D.' for British use (p 182), which goes against the idea of not placing points after initialisms (I assume that it meant to say acronyms, but failed to communicate this at all convincingly).

The whole section on abbreviations/acronyms is contradictory, and feels as if it has been poorly considered in comparison with the rest of its advice. I suspect that it has been half-heartedly updated to recognise the point-dropping norm we see today, where the editors with responsibility of effecting this decision unwilling to do so properly due to their own stylistic preferences. For this reason, I suggest that NHR's advice on this matter is ignored; we should not be taking something as serious advice when it has not been given anything like the necessary consideration by the 'experts' who write it. Whether we go with one of the other respectable ones (eg CMoS) or try to work out the general favouring amongst universities (as they really should know) is another matter.

A re-run of the debate is necessary; the MoS is not offering anything helpful, as demonstrated by the randomness in articles. And, it should—as you say, SMcCandlish—be presented with a focus on non-journalistic style. –Sb2001 ^{talk page} 16:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

If you're referring to the current (Waddingham) edition of NHR, it is indeed full of contradictions and other problems, a result of rushed and poor editing. MoS is based on the previous edition from the early 2000s, by Ritter (and the corresponding previous edition of Fowler's, by Burchfield). The Waddingham ed. is too new to have had any real-world impact (and may have none, since like the corresponding new Fowler's, by Butterfield, it's riddled with problems, and has taken an unhelpful "we dunno, we give up, do whatever you feel like" approach to numerous style questions presumably due to pressure from the British press who diverge sharply from Oxford style). MoS's US basis CMoS 15th and 16th editions (the 17th is brand new, just this month), and a little input from Elements of Style 4th ed. Scientific Style and Format current and previous edition are also were a lot of the technical stuff is from, especially in MOS:NUM; it's produced by an international body, and while the last two editions have been US-published, the previous ones were UK-published.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

My call... allow both styles... there is no need for project wide consistency on this... just a need to be consistent within any given article. Blueboar (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

To "allow both styles" is a reasonable compromise, and I think compromise is a good thing, but I think it ends up making Wikipedia look worse. I think Wikipedia looks best and is taken most seriously when it is consistent. I favor writing without the dots as that has most in common with what our practice has been in the past and how I see it in professional writing, but I'd rather see it go either way than encourage inconsistency. That will lead to edit wars and people thinking we look sloppy.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The other factors against "just be consistent within the article" are a) we would have no style manual at all if that were the goal, and b) it's a recipe for constant article-by-article fighting, all day every day, over the same stuff over and over again. While MoS's primary goal is producing consistent, quality output for readers, the secondary one of curtailing productivity-draining style trivia battleground activity is close on its heels, and (judging from historical discussions) is why MoS was actually initially created.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• Decision time! This either needs to be reopened as a formal discussion, or we need to stop. Nothing will come of a few people expressing opinions here. –Sb2001 ^{talk page} 21:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, the clear idea is to do an RfC again later, but WP doesn't do back-to-back RfCs, per WP:FORUMSHOP. This might not come up again for anywhere from 3 to 18 months. I'm suggesting that it be planned ahead of time. I've outlined the no. 1 no-dots point, but there are others, and the use-dots points also have to be considered. It's helpful to resolution to list the major ones (sometimes in a collapse-boxed section, if the material isn't compact) as part of the RfC.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

First of all, I think that SMcCandlish is incorrect that WP's style is based almost entirely on academic style. I see the AP style guide cited rather frequently in MOS discussions, and not just on IDENTITY issues. I do think that the MOS should have more clarity on this issue, but I don't think it is a life-or-death issue for Wikipedia. Nor is there that much urgency on this -- after all, there is no deadline. I also disagree with Blueboar that article-by-article consistency without project-wide consistency on this issue leads to people thinking we look sloppy. We aren't going to be fully consistent in any case, because there are cases where STRONGNAT applies, and usage in the wider world is simply not consistent. Some abbreviations use dots pretty much everywhere, even in the UK where most do not. Most acronyms and many non-acronym initalisms more or less never use them (When was the last time you saw "F.B.I." or "U.R.L." for example? Or even "U.S."?) However, I very much dislike the idea of edit wars over this. Perhaps something like ENGVAR or CITEVAR should apply, so that once an article has a consistent style, edits to change that would require a clear local consensus (which in practice almost never happens)? Or perhaps not.

I am rather reluctant to reopen this as a new RFC so soon after the last one. Perhaps it would be best to spend some time crafting a better RFC with better defined proposals, and then try to obtain a wider participation than the last one had? SchreiberBike and the others who have commented here and are pinged above, what do you think? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Certainly: having poorly-written RfC questions does not result in a result reflective of what people actually think. The 'Sir' one at village pump which just ended was a good example of an editor—me :(—having written something far too quickly, and not actually expressing, clearly, what the next steps would be. I actually agree with SchreiberBike (NB, not Blueboar) saying project inconsistency will lead to people seeing us as sloppy. The MoS' job is to prevent this by encouraging complete consistency, and enforcing (sorry, SMc) it with the strictest rigour. I see it as entirely beneficial to re-run the RfC, because otherwise nothing has consensus. What comes now is deciding upon a good question, how we will draw more attention to it (placing it on the main MoS talk page is a start), and then getting on with it. Whilst I accept that time is needed to improve what is being asked, I urge you to recognise the necessity to achieve a section with clarity, which has been approved by consensus. –Sb2001 ^{talk page} 00:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I also agree with Schreiberbike's take. As for DESiegel's "I see the AP style guide cited rather frequently in MOS discussions" – examples? They're usually cited by MoS regulars only when they're in back-up agreement with our main sources. Various people who want to change MoS cite AP Stylebook, The Guardian & Observer Style Guide, etc., because they desire to force news style they're more familiar with onto Wikipedia, and are promptly referred to WP:NOT#NEWS, and the matter closes quickly, with no news-style changes. Very little in MoS ever came from a news style guide (i.e., is not found in an academic one). Anyway, yes, I'm not suggesting an immediate re-RfC, just a planned one, because it will need to be settled in some way, or disputes will continue to be recurrent about it and to thus waste F-loads of editorial time and patience.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Dan Huberty edit warring

Hi DES, I see you have commented on the page before and as admin maybe able to help. There appears to be edit warring on this page over a certain section on voting ratings and despite it being taken to the talk page it continues. I haven’t stepped in as don’t really know which user is “right” however I do believe it needs some help to stop it continuing. NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 07:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello DESiegel:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Linguist^unEins^uno 18:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

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

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, DESiegel. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Can you check my article?

Hello, how are you? I am a new user and I wrote my first article, I hope there may be several in the future :smiley:. I'm interested in the religious topic. When I registered on the site I tried to upload it but I did it in the wrong place - on my user page - and someone deleted it, now I did it in my Sandbox, I would like you to be able to review it to see if it can be published. I know I can submit it as a Draft, but I saw that the number of pending articles is very large, and theoretically the article is ready, maybe you can advise me. Thank you!--Marie Steypi (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Top Tier Gas Logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Top Tier Gas Logo.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) 18:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:List of Episodes of "The Joy of Painting"

Hello, DESiegel. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of Episodes of "The Joy of Painting"".

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 and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 08:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)