User talk:David Gerard/archive 14

Help decide the future of Wikimania

The Wikimedia Foundation is currently running a consultation on the value and planning process of Wikimania, and is open until 18 January 2016. The goals are to (1) build a shared understanding of the value of Wikimania to help guide conference planning and evaluation, and (2) gather broad community input on what new form(s) Wikimania could take (starting in 2018).

After reviewing the consultation, we'd like to hear your feedback on on this survey.

In addition, feel free to share any personal experiences you have had at at a Wikimedia movement conference, including Wikimania. We plan to compile and share back outcomes from this consultation in February.

With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk), from Community Resources 22:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cryonics

Regarding the use of primary sources, I think you are misunderstanding what these mean in the context of Wikipedia. I suggest you refer to the guidelines on Wikipedia sources. Best wishes, Tiddlypeep (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do know about advertising materials, and when the primary sources are to be distrusted on principle. You are literally putting up publicity materials from cryonics organisations, and that's two editors who have removed your attempts to do so so far - David Gerard (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a cryonics organization. It's a research network, non-profit. It showcases that cryonics has some scientific acceptance, which is why it is relevant. Tiddlypeep (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is a cryonics advocacy group, per its name. I've noted it on WP:FTN, in the quest for more eyeballs on the situation - David Gerard (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You noted it with your own personal biases (calling it "advertising material"), but I could be mistaken about its use, so happy to seek out another opinion. Tiddlypeep (talk) 23:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have mentioned this issue in the article talk page following advice on WP:FTN. I look forward to further discussions. Tiddlypeep (talk) 11:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question for regarding Natural News article

Hi are you an admin here? On the Natural News article my opinion is that the story about Adams being investigated for potential calls for violence against Monsanto is more relevant in the opening section than the story about sockpuppets, what's your take on that?--206.255.37.145 (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on third-party coverage really. Might look and opine later - David Gerard (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transhumanist politics dispute resolution

Hello! I have made a dispute resolution request for the dispute about sources on the transhumanist politics page "too close to the subject". I hope that we can get this problem resolved! --Haptic Feedback (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth round of statements are now up. Discussing the IEET sources. Please respond in 48 hrs if you won't be responding to this section. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 03:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the open letter not a RS? In particular since it's a source in cryonics? Tiddlypeep (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rolf Nelson already detailed the non-notability of the Open Letter on Cryonics at Talk:Cryonics#Cryonics_organizations, responding directly to you - David Gerard (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Towards a New Wikimania results

Last December, I invited you to share your views on the value of Wikimedia conferences and the planning process of Wikimania. We have completed analysis of these results and have prepared this report summarizing your feedback and important changes for Wikimania starting in 2018 as an experiment. Feedback and comments are welcome at the discussion page. Thank you so much for your participation. I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, 22:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shlivovitz listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Shlivovitz. Since you had some involvement with the Shlivovitz redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skyring and Head of State dispute

If you have time, could you help me understand a complex decision made in 2005 and what sort of decision or precedent it sets? Talk:Australian_head_of_state_dispute#AfD_continued_and_ArbCom. Thanks in advance. Travelmite (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um, nothing. Arbcom didn't do indefinite rulings at that time at all, we limited stuff to one year - David Gerard (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request to restore deleted page - Betty X

Betty X is an influential female musician, conceptual artist, and songwriter that first made her impact in Seattle during the 1990's. She has been described by Seattle publications as a "Dangerously sexy blend of poisonous and volatile apocalyptic-metal with sarcastic aggro female vocals." Betty X has become one of the most recognized names in conceptual art, post-apocalyptic rock - not just in Seattle, but in Austin and Los Angeles, as well. She continues to be a powerful influence for female singers/songwriters/artists/musicians and participates on many panel discussions and appearances along with Patti Quatro and others, in addition to her live performances and collaborations with such bands as Ministry and Pigface.

Betty X is currently gearing up to release her fifth solo album, which is being co-produced by the legendary Al Jourgensen of Ministry fame, confirming her presence as a current and relevant musician. This article supports the claim that Betty X has played with Ministry, [1], and removes any question of the claim's validity.

This article [2], as well as this book excerpt, [3], confirm and validate her work with Martin Atkins and Pigface: Tour Smart.

From her first band, Salon Betty, which performed with Alice In Chains and other influential Seattle bands, to being featured on the new Surgical Meth Machine (Al Jourgensen's new project) to be released April 15th on Nuclear Blast records, Betty X continues to be relevant in the music industry.

Betty X is affiliated with Salon Betty, Satan in High Heels, Ministry, Pigface, Sheep on Drugs, and Surgical Meth Machine. She has current websites and fan pages including [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. It would be a detriment to the history of female artists and musicians, as well as the history of post-apocalyptic rock, music in Seattle, etc.

With all due respect, I am requesting that this page, which has been active for over 10 years, be fully restored. Any claims that were deemed to be without validation will be updated, as well as any other pertinent information. Not only does the removal of this page have an impact on booking agents, etc., to research Betty X, but it also hinders the education of younger generation conceptual artists, musicians, singers, and songwriters.Terivangogo (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.ontourmonthly.com/ministry-spreads-the-word-at-the-bomb-factory-in-dallas/
  2. ^ http://www.xmag.com/archives/13-09-mar06/feature4.html
  3. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=le5Sr5YCyk4C&pg=PA130&lpg=PA130&dq=%22Betty+X%22+%2B+Pigface&source=bl&ots=BRPDTk1w8T&sig=EyYGbKYns_lyApJYIvZJ-0pCsDk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi7g8PLhfjKAhWCeSYKHWQQDE04ChDoAQglMAI#v=onepage&q=%22Betty%20X%22%20%2B%20Pigface&f=false
  4. ^ https://bettyx.bandcamp.com/
  5. ^ https://www.facebook.com/BettyXOfficial/?pnref=lhc
  6. ^ https://twitter.com/bettyxofficial
  7. ^ https://www.reverbnation.com/bettyx
  8. ^ https://myspace.com/bettyx
FYI DG this thread Wikipedia:Help desk#Deleted.2Fremoved article - Betty X has already answered this persons questions. I have directed the to WP:DRV as well. Cheers and enjoy your week. MarnetteD|Talk 21:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


The thing that really struck me was not just that I couldn't find "reliable" sources (ones passing WP:RS), I couldn't even find unreliable sources. No fan sites, no discussions of this purported influence. I can find better for almost anyone with five albums that weren't self-released. Her records aren't even on discogs, and I can routinely find the most obscure self-releases there if they were ever in physical form. I mean, that's amazing for someone of the level of influence and fame claimed by the original article and your writeup here. If she's "influential", there's literally no verifiable evidence of it - David Gerard (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-neo-Nazi activism has been nominated for discussion

Category:Anti-neo-Nazi activism, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. PanchoS (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VisualEditor News #1—2016

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Did you know?
Among experienced editors, the visual editor's table editing is one of the most popular features.
Screenshot showing a pop-up menu for column operations in a table
If you select the top of a column or the end of a row, you can quickly insert and remove columns and rows.

Now, you can also rearrange columns and rows. Click "Move before" or "Move after" to swap the column or row with its neighbor.

You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor Team has fixed many bugs. Their workboard is available in Phabricator. Their current priorities are improving support for Japanese, Korean, Arabic, Indic, and Han scripts, and improving the single edit tab interface.

Recent changes

You can switch from the wikitext editor to the visual editor after you start editing. This function is available to nearly all editors at most wikis except the Wiktionaries and Wikisources.

Many local feedback pages for the visual editor have been redirected to mw:VisualEditor/Feedback.

You can now re-arrange columns and rows in tables, as well as copying a row, column or any other selection of cells and pasting it in a new location.

The formula editor has two options: you can choose "Quick edit" to see and change only the LaTeX code, or "Edit" to use the full tool. The full tool offers immediate preview and an extensive list of symbols.

Future changes

The single edit tab project will combine the "Edit" and "Edit source" tabs into a single "Edit" tab. This is similar to the system already used on the mobile website. (T102398) Initially, the "Edit" tab will open whichever editing environment you used last time. Your last editing choice will be stored as an account preference for logged-in editors, and as a cookie for logged-out users. Logged-in editors will have these options in the Editing tab of Special:Preferences:

  • Remember my last editor,
  • Always give me the visual editor if possible,
  • Always give me the source editor, and
  • Show me both editor tabs.  (This is the state for people using the visual editor now.)

The visual editor uses the same search engine as Special:Search to find links and files. This search will get better at detecting typos and spelling mistakes soon. These improvements to search will appear in the visual editor as well.

The visual editor will be offered to all editors at most "Phase 6" Wikipedias during the next few months. The developers would like to know how well the visual editor works in your language. They particularly want to know whether typing in your language feels natural in the visual editor. Please post your comments and the language(s) that you tested at the feedback thread on mediawiki.org. This will affect the following languages: Japanese, Korean, Urdu, Persian, Arabic, Tamil, Marathi, Malayalam, Hindi, Bengali, Assamese, Thai, Aramaic and others.

Let's work together

If you aren't reading this in your favorite language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Thanks!

– Whatamidoing (WMF) 17:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello DG. A thread has been opened here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#user:David Gerard. I though I better inform you about it since the OP hasn't. I hope that you enjoy the rest of your week in spite of this. MarnetteD|Talk 06:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Compromised account?

I mentioned you on that administrators noticeboard/i thingy. BrxBrx (talk) 07:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ron Newman

A tag has been placed on Ron Newman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
  • disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ethereum

Please don't mess with the Ethereum page. Thanks! Legionof7 (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This contains a strange implicit accusation. Do you have any particular diff of editing you consider "messing with" it? I must note that with the recent pump'n'dump of Ethereum, the Ethereum article will need the closest of disinterested editorial monitoring - David Gerard (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? You have been obviously making useless edits to that page. Legionof7 (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:NPA, and if you have a financial position in Ethereum then WP:COI. Please note that if you have a financial interest in ETH, including a holding, or close involvement with the Ethereum Foundation, Ethereum development or any other substantive conflict of interest, you are required by the Wikimedia terms of use (section 4) to disclose it before editing - David Gerard (talk) 12:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. Legionof7 (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo.cm listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Yahoo.cm. Since you had some involvement with the Yahoo.cm redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Cryonics. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC) (DRN volunteer}}[reply]

Draft:Citizencard

Hi. Back in February, you removed a CSD tag from a redirect for the name CitizenCard, which points the reader to Proof of Age Standards Scheme, of which Citizencard is an example. However, the draft has been developed to the point where there appear to be enough independent sources to warrant a stand-alone article. Do you have still have an objection to deleting the redirect so that the draft can be moved to the mainspace? Onel5969 TT me 13:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a good enough standalone article, go for it - David Gerard (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Curtis Yarvin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Curtis Yarvin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curtis Yarvin until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ironholds (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Information-theoretic death

Please go to the talk page of the article to explain why you keep reverting my edits.

WP:OR, cites not supporting claims - David Gerard (talk) 07:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did not list any original research, just like the conclusion that "50 + 39 = 89" is not original research despite not having a source for it. I provided a source for the claim that all information is conserved; if you accept the brain is a physical entity and not some magical entity then all the information follows pretty easily.
So I think you are lying about the original research thing, and using it as a way to keep views you don't like off the page.
That's probably not a good start to getting information into Wikipedia. In any case, your conclusion more closely resembles "2 + 2 = 22" - David Gerard (talk) 10:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, my conclusion doesn't require any leaps of logic, it follows DIRECTLY from the sourced fact that information is preserved. Many other people have attempted to put on the page the same thing as me, unfortunately your vandalism has locked the page up. You should consider whether vandalising Wikipedia is a good use of your time. This discussion should be continued on the page's talk page.
It's only a blog post, not an RS, but this post from a physicist, following up another physicist, gives a rough outline of just what a high burden of proof the claim of quantum computation in the brain faces - David Gerard (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Cryonics". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 April 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 20:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want one Edit tab, or two? It's your choice

How to switch between editing environments
Part of the toolbar in the visual editor
Click the [[ ]] to switch to the wikitext editor.
Part of the toolbar in the wikitext editor
Click the pencil icon to switch to the visual editor.

The editing interface will be changed soon. When that happens, editors who currently see two editing tabs – "Edit" and "Edit source" – will start seeing one edit tab instead. The single edit tab has been popular at other Wikipedias. When this is deployed here, you may be offered the opportunity to choose your preferred appearance and behavior the next time you click the Edit button. You will also be able to change your settings in the Editing section of Special:Preferences.

You can choose one or two edit tabs. If you chose one edit tab, then you can switch between the two editing environments by clicking the buttons in the toolbar (shown in the screenshots). See Help:VisualEditor/User guide#Switching between the visual and wikitext editors for more information and screenshots.

There is more information about this interface change at mw:VisualEditor/Single edit tab. If you have questions, suggestions, or problems to report, then please leave a note at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback.

Whatamidoing (WMF) 19:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Cryonics, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Note

Hello David,

I would very much appreciate if you would block someone who has been harassing me. I have tried to reason with him, but he has not responded in a favorable or mature manner. They do not even have a real name! They are: User talk:32.218.152.93. Please help me. Thank you sir! Splendidworld12 (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a word with Splendidworld12 about the need to accept criticism from other users, including IPs. ~!Acroterion (talk)

Low-Flying Aircraft listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Low-Flying Aircraft. Since you had some involvement with the Low-Flying Aircraft redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Houdinipeter (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. NeatGrey (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Vitalik Buterin

An article that you have been involved in editing—Vitalik Buterin —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 7 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Request for Comment

Hey there. I heard from a friend of a friend that you might be interested in weighing in on [[1]]? It's been a bit of a weird discussion, the deletion attempt may have been made in bad faith, and the thread's gotten chaotic. I heard you'd seen the page and thought it was a keep, so I'm wondering if you wanted to comment? Plankhead (talk) 00:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's an obvious keep and I'd speedy it myself if the friend of a friend hadn't asked me directly to opine on it. The actual evidence it was a bad faith nom for the specific purpose of trolling will do the nominator's reputation no good, assuming they care - David Gerard (talk) 07:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:RationalWiki

I've just username blocked User:RationalWiki , thought I'd let you know in case you want to advise them - or if it really is someone representing RationalWiki. It's a routine username block and the editor can easily get a new name. The fact that there 2nd edit was to take something to AfD is interesting but that is a seriously bad article. Doug Weller talk 11:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

cheers :-) Not anyone I know of and certainly not an official account - David Gerard (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm guessing they're the new account which added a PROD to the article at AfD. Doug Weller talk 15:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Sorcha Faal reports.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Over 15 editors have collaborated on this article to bring it to its status quo ante bellum. Please seek out uniform consensus before making substantial re-writes. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 17:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above is from someone edit-warring to restore a BLP violation - David Gerard (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, David Gerard. Your massive removal of consensus content from a stable article was disruptive. My two reverts were not edit warring. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 16:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Or So It Seems, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daniel Miller. 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) 09:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case

Hi David Gerard Please note that you have been named as party in an arbitration case you can view and respond to here. [2] Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 10:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AE_LIVE

I dunno why the AE_LIVE article is any less notable than any other band's live releases, particularly one of this scale. I mean, this has much information as Kraftwerk's Minimum Maximum album page but that is still about. I'm not saying i'm right, i'm just saying this bloke wasn't correct in his statement of lack of notability. Drneroli (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Decentralized autonomous organization

An article that you have been involved in editing—Decentralized autonomous organization—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

about ifsloc in

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.413.4352&rep=rep1&type=pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yzyzyz1979 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

about if SLOC including comment lines

please talk with me ! please！ please！


It 'is a disputed, I dont think it edit-war. please！ please talk with me !

please see http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.413.4352&rep=rep1&type=pdf

see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Source_lines_of_code&oldid=672185307

see http://www.projectcodemeter.com/cost_estimation/help/GL_sloc.htm

see Emacs SLOC, is including comment lines!

see https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOC they count lines, too including comment lines.


please write，help ， please two points double appear on web. my english poor. no back , no The dictatorship； to Coexistence！ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yzyzyz1979 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom case request

A request for arbitration has been declined as premature at this time. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 13:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request that you stop using ethnically offensive langauge

(cc @Checkingfax:@Doug Weller:) I am respectfully requesting that you immediatly cease your use of the ethnically offensive langauge you've been using on the Sorcha Faal reports article Talk Page, and as I've noted same here. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The claim being objected to is that Russian media has a habit of seizing upon conspiracy theories, and in the present instance repeating claims made on the Sorcha Faal website - David Gerard (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Have lodged a DYK nomination for "Duncan". Dan arndt (talk) 09:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! I was literally just going to look up how to do that ... - David Gerard (talk) 09:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your alternative hook is a little 'clunky' needs to be more 'catchy'. Also to use the image there needs to be a reference in the hook, something about the pub... Dan arndt (talk) 10:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure we can work on it! - David Gerard (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look at the fourth post on the Australia-charts.com forum (18/04/2009) Bulion provides details of every week's No. 1 single, including "Duncan". Your comments on the DYK nomination aren't particularly helpful and may lead to the nomination being rejected. Have been through the DYK process numerous times and sometimes the final editors are 'picky', so let's keep the discussion on how to resolve it here on your talkpage. We are all trying for the same outcome so let's work together. Will buy you a beer if your ever back in Perth. Dan arndt (talk) 08:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Duncan (Slim Dusty song)

On 6 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Duncan (Slim Dusty song), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in February 1981, "Duncan", a song about drinking beer, was the number-one single in Australia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Duncan (Slim Dusty song). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Duncan (Slim Dusty song)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting my edit

If there is a discussion involving me, I have no right to comment? What was the logic behind your revert? X-Men XtremE 09:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies! I clicked the wrong link. I thought I'd caught it in time, but evidently not - David Gerard (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing deletion nomination - who closes?

Thanks for the cheers for the citations I dug up for Haridas Chaudhuri. Since you've withdrawn the nomination, does that mean the deletion nomination template can be removed, or do we wait for someone (an admin?) to close the deletion nomination? I'm not quite sure how this works... Thanks -- Presearch (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, which is why I left it :-) - David Gerard (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Fantasie (Waxman)

Could you please nominate Carmen Fantasie (Waxman) for deletion? (I would have done it myself, but I can't.) The main reasons are that it doesn't seem to be notable at all (I can't find internet links with discussion about the topic for example, and it's basically just an arrangement of some pieces from Carmen for a soundtrack) and that it's been suffering a lack of references for over ten years now, with little perspective for improvement. Another point to consider is that due to the extremely limited scope, it isn't likely to grow beyond one or two paragraphs. Maybe some material can be kept as a footnote in another article, but this one is a lost cause I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.146.117 (talk) 09:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A trivial Google Books search shows a pile of possible sourcing, so I'm not confident to do so as yet without looking more closely. I might look later and see if this one can be rescued (or anyone else reading this page can). Carmen Fantasie (Waxman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - David Gerard (talk) 09:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree, the piece is, to freely quote two sources, still often played by violin virtuosi and the piece for which the composer is best known. I have added a few {{cite book}}s. Sam Sailor Talk! 16:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, rescuing an article is a better outcome than deletion where achievable :-) - David Gerard (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Topic bans

This isn't related to an article we've edited together, but I'm trying to figure out what's the first thing I'm supposed to do when I become aware that an editor is violating existing topic bans for the umpteenth time that were imposed almost 5 years ago and for which the editor has been blocked for violating multiple times over the years? I've never reported anyone for anything before, but I don't want to waste more time on a particular talkpage, because I feel like this editor and are are not having the same conversation and I can see in talkpage archives on other articles that almost identical circular conversations have been going on for the past 5+ years and they never get anywhere. I just asked Rhododendrites the same question too and then I realized afterwards that they have a banner at the top of the talkpage saying they're on a wikibreak. Just wanted to clarify that I'm not asking 2 people to see who gives me the best answer. :) —PermStrump(talk) 12:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've never had cause to invoke another editor's topic ban. I suppose with an old one, the first thing would be to civilly point it out to them and suggest that if they want to continue they should get it lifted, and if they don't desist then ANI. That is, show effort before ANI. Then ANI has to take an interest ... - David Gerard (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing News #2—2016

Editing News #2—2016 Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Did you know?

It's quick and easy to insert a references list.

Screenshot showing a dropdown menu with many items

Place the cursor where you want to display the references list (usually at the bottom of the page). Open the "Insert" menu and click the "References list" icon (three books).

If you are using several groups of references, which is relatively rare, you will have the opportunity to specify the group. If you do that, then only the references that belong to the specified group will be displayed in this list of references.

Finally, click "Insert" in the dialog to insert the References list. This list will change as you add more footnotes to the page.

You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor team has fixed many bugs. Their workboard is available in Phabricator. Their current priorities are improving support for Arabic and Indic scripts, and adapting the visual editor to the needs of the Wikivoyages and Wikisources.

Recent changes

The visual editor is now available to all users at most Wikivoyages. It was also enabled for all contributors at the French Wikinews.

The single edit tab feature combines the "Edit" and "Edit source" tabs into a single "Edit" tab. It has been deployed to several Wikipedias, including Hungarian, Polish, English and Japanese Wikipedias, as well as to all Wikivoyages. At these wikis, you can change your settings for this feature in the "Editing" tab of Special:Preferences. The team is now reviewing the feedback and considering ways to improve the design before rolling it out to more people.

Future changes

The "Save page" button will say "Publish page". This will affect both the visual and wikitext editing systems. More information is available on Meta.

The visual editor will be offered to all editors at the remaining "Phase 6" Wikipedias during the next few months. The developers want to know whether typing in your language feels natural in the visual editor. Please post your comments and the language(s) that you tested at the feedback thread on mediawiki.org. This will affect several languages, including: Arabic, Hindi, Thai, Tamil, Marathi, Malayalam, Urdu, Persian, Bengali, Assamese, Aramaic and others.

The team is working with the volunteer developers who power Wikisource to provide the visual editor there, for opt-in testing right now and eventually for all users. (T138966)

The team is working on a modern wikitext editor. It will look like the visual editor, and be able to use the citoid service and other modern tools. This new editing system may become available as a Beta Feature on desktop devices around September 2016. You can read about this project in a general status update on the Wikimedia mailing list.

Let's work together

If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Thank you!

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk), 21:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Yarvin - Supposed editorializing

Hello David. In a recent edit of yours you reverted a change of mine, accusing me of editorializing in the edit message. In reply to your edit message: I had no issue with the source, just that there was only one source.

The belief that Yarvin is a racist who supports slavery seems controversial, but it may be widely held regardless; if so, I thought such a statement should be supported by multiple sources. In retrospect my edit, which was only a small rewording, was lazy, and I should have done what you did: add more sources.

With that said, my question is: why specifically did you think my edit was editorializing? It's not my intent to do so, but I have little experience on BLP articles on WP, so I may have done so unknowingly. Michael Reed (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

cheers on creating a user name :-) The bit where the edits were basically arguing with the source, in Wikipedia voice. If we need to do that it may not be a source worth having - David Gerard (talk) 07:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I'll try to take that into account in the future. Michael Reed (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's lots of discussion on Talk:Curtis Yarvin. He's clearly notable, but finding high-quality sources is very tricky, blogs aren't suitable for a controversial BLP, etc ... and we still need decent tech press sources on Urbit, and they don't seem to exist ... - David Gerard (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it seems that most, if not all, of the viable sources for Yarvin come up in the first 2 pages of a Google search—everything else is just blog posts. --Michael Reed (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EnlightenNext (2nd nomination)

Hi David, am I correct in thinking that your reversion of my AFD close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EnlightenNext (2nd nomination) was an accident? You undid it quickly but thought I'd check in and make sure you had no issue with the closing process. Thanks! KaisaL (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I apologise most profusely! The interface makes it way too easy to hit the wrong button ... I'm learning to check now, which is why I immediately reverted myself - David Gerard (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries at all! KaisaL (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ether (Cryptocurrency)

Hello David. I saw that you reverted almost immediately all changes made in the context of Ethereum and Ether (Cryptocurrency) articles. Can you elaborate on your action? I tried to see the history of Ether (Cryptocurrency) and it seems that it is removed as well, any reason for that? Thank you in advance. Gparalikidis 11:20, 12 July2016 (UTC)

Ether (cryptocurrency) and Ether (Cryptocurrency) are different articles - the first has no history. I noted the problems on Talk:Ether (Cryptocurrency) - all the sourced material is completely redundant with Ethereum, all sources covering Ether are also primarily about Ethereum, and everything in the article that wasn't redundant was unsourced material already removed from Ethereum for being unsourced. There's basically no separate notability. My edits to Ethereum were explained in the edit summaries - lots of ungrammatical English, lots of redundancy, lots of bad and unencyclopedic phrasing - David Gerard (talk) 15:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crocker's rules

A while ago you deleted a relevant portion of LEe Daniel Crocker's biography (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lee_Daniel_Crocker&oldid=665870911), because there was "no evidence for notability of concept - cite is to a blog".

Regarding evidence of notability, in addition to the fact that Crocker's rules are a really neat idea, Google provides over half a million results for the terms. A factor of 100.000:1 when compared to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuntur_Iki%C3%B1a_(Puno), a random Wikipedia page.

As to the fact that LessWrong is a blog, it is also supported by the Machine Intelligence Research Institute and the Center for Applied Rationality, and the author of the post, Eliezer Yudowsky, could be described as an authority.

Perhaps, as this Wikipedia page suggests (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_%22Ignore_all_rules%22_means), keeping Crocker's rules is consistent with "our goal is to improve Wikipedia so that it better informs readers". What are your thoughts? What, if there is still something, would be required to reincorporate Crocker's rules? Do note that your edit is still standing.

Aristotles (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the talk page? It's a WP:BLP, so WP:IAR is one to apply with profound caution. A blog post on LessWrong is really just not a WP:RS for purposes of a BLP - and if that's really all you've got, and you don't have any better source, or strong evidence it's a neologism in sufficient usage to put into a living bio, then it absolutely must not be in a BLP. I strongly urge you to read WP:BLP and think why everything it says is the way it is. The phrase itself is clearly a neologism that has failed to take on, so WP:NEO applies - David Gerard (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Day

Long time no see. FredrickDay2 (talk) 03:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, David Gerard. You have new messages at Talk:Ethereum.
Message added 11:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

N2e (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Berny Martin

Is there anyway to restore this article from deletion? It was tagged for PROD concerns (probably due to the lack of sources in-article) but there are several independent sources on him, and apparently his fashion line company Catou has international recognition as well. Listed below are the sources I have found:

Books:

Let me know if these are suffice. If deemed acceptable, I'll take it upon myself to include and get it to at least a START article. Thank you kindly. Savvyjack23 (talk) 02:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I've restored it to draft space as Draft:Berny Martin - when you think it's ready, move it back to article space - David Gerard (talk) 11:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great thanks! Savvyjack23 (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Rose

Thank you for restoring the Tony Rose page as a draft and for providing the information below:.

I've restored it as Draft:Tony Rose, remember the stringent requirements of WP:BLP (basically, you should have a source for every claim) and that it clearly passes WP:NOTABILITY, and move it back to main article space when you're sure it's ready and people looking at it afresh will be clearly convinced -

After reading your comments (see above) I have a few questions: Do the reference links serve as the "source" or does the source need to be indicated within the text? What do you mean by every claim? How much time do I have to move it back to the main article space? and how do I move it back? What steps do I take?

Thank you again. YMARI — Preceding unsigned comment added by YMARI (talk • contribs) 18:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You sound very new to Wikipedia. I would suggest, then, that you read every link on the Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia page; that you read the requirements on living biographies, and, if you're linked to Tony Rose at all, WP:COI. (You can edit with a conflict of interest, with great care to behave with propriety, but you do have to state it.)
The main thing to make your article stick: lots of good references from verifiable third-party "reliable sources". (Think of "reliable sources" as a Wikipedia jargon word meaning "mainstream media", mostly.)
I can't commit time myself to helping you through getting the article into shape to survive this time, unfortunately. But hopefully this will help. And feel free to edit on other subjects too ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Buehler

Hi, I've nominated Randy Buehler for deletion. FYI. LavaBaron (talk) 12:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Used one of your photos

Thought you might like to see if you can remember which of the photos at Philip Hepworth was taken by you? Or maybe the notifications system tells people this now? I cropped it from your original, using the nifty CropTool on Commons. Thanks for taking the photo way back when! Carcharoth (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. Just this one, nice to see it being used :-) - David Gerard (talk) 00:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Glenn S Lipson

Hi David,

You deleted Glenn S. Lipson this morning. Since I had been working on it all week to get the things on the Talk page to show he was cited in multiple things on Wiki Scholar and multiple news sources and had been addressing the concerns of the edition that proposed deletion.

Can I add a no follow to the page up now, so I can take the orginal article with all of the corrections into my sand box and let it set for several months while I continue to pull citations for him and document his news coverage?

Thanks very much,

JoeyD2010 (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He was in 4 text books, the New York Times article had been replaced with an article that talked about his expert testimony and the talk page went into detail that he was listed on Google Scholar with his research and books back to 1986, who had cited them and that the editor who proposed this for deletion had rushed through the Google Scholar and said Lipson had no citation and he had numerous, as in pages. That editor also said he had one citation on WordCat, he actually had 5 including text books.

He may not be ready for prime time yet, but I would like to put a no follow up on the deleted page and move the working in progress back to my sand box. How do I do that?

Thanks,

JoeyD2010 (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I've restored it to Draft:Glenn S. Lipson and Draft talk:Glenn S. Lipson - David Gerard (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many many thanks David,

I had been trying to do that since the one editor nominated it for deletion but had failed to read both Google Scholar and the WordCat had been misquoted as 1 instead of the 4 or 5 Lipson had.... Took me 7 months to get it ready the first time. I would must more prefer to go slow another 5 or 6 months as I have time and get it right.

Your the best.... thanks again.

JoeyD2010 (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David, while it is in the draft area can I remove the PROD tag since many of the concerns raised by that editor has been corrected. I will be asking for help from you and the other very nice admin Redrose64 that has been reading each edit as I went along and had elaborated on each section, including ref tags. Also the NY Times article used to propose the PROD tag was the first to be corrected...

Thanks again for any and all help

Joey D JoeyD2010 (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, yes you can :-) I shoulda removed that - David Gerard (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing David, can I add a "no follow" to the page that is up showing the link of: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glenn_S._Lipson

To get it off of the search engines while I finish working on the draft and asking for input as I go along?


Last question today I promise.... Just want to be correct here on it's OK to do that now...

Again many thanks,

Joey JoeyD2010 (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can. WP:NOINDEX shows how to mark pages "noindex", but also that it doesn't work in article space - David Gerard (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Artwork deletion

Excuse me, what are you doing? There is no consensus whatsoever over this. I added improvements to it, it reads pretty smoothly now. Have you read comments added? Machine translation is a legitimate WP option (with it own application) and does not disqualify it as an article unless it is an non-revised awkward translation. It is not the case. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Proposed deletion - it was marked for deletion with nobody objecting for a week. Since you're working on it, I've restored it to Draft:Muchachos jugando a soldados so you can continue! - David Gerard (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Well, I fixed some problems, and objected to the deletion. (I think) It was on the talk page, there was no other space. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I just saw the tag was still there. (Anyone can remove a PROD notice.) Anyway, sorry to interrupt your work :-) - David Gerard (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! However, may I suggest, you could double check the article for English yourself. The Article may be in need of further improvement in terms of referencing but when it comes to language I do not know what else I can do to be honest. It reads fine as far as I am concerned. Iñaki LL (talk) 11:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ethereum bolding

Hey David. I have a question about how to handle something. I have no problem with your last edit that moved the bolded reference to ether to the article intro, rather than where I had it in the subsection. But I do have a question about it. (Heck, I've been doing this for years and didn't even know bolding was appropriate for redirect mentions to article sections. So thanks for teaching me that.)

Question: when a redir links to an article subsection, and not the article as a whole, why might the lede section be best for showing the bloding, rather than the subsection that is linked to. ether (value token), ether (cryptocurrency), and ether (Cryptocurrency) all seem to redir_link directly to the Ether subsection, and not to the Ethereum article lede.

My guess is that the wiki-community work on figuring out what to do in these cases was long and complex. I'm certainly very new to this practice. N2e (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems odd, but I overwhelmingly see redirect targets bolded in the lead section even when the word actually points to a subsection (though I see them lower-down sometimes). The idea is the lead should constitute an informative very short article on its own. MOSBOLD says "The most common use of boldface is to highlight the first occurrence of the title word/phrase of the article (and often its synonyms) in the lead section, as well as terms that are redirected to the article or its sub-sections. This is done for the majority of articles, but is not a requirement", which implies it but doesn't outright say it. I'm sure there were millions of words of querulousness on the subject, but don't have it ready to hand ;-) I'm just imitating what I see everywhere else. Sometimes the bolded synonyms can get silly, e.g. integral theory, and with drugs there are so many synonyms they shove them in the infobox these days - David Gerard (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Was helpful. Like I said, definitely a somewhat complex topic where nothing seems quite satisfactory; but helpful to have your thoughts. N2e (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Information Request

Can you help me to obtain a specific information? Hebrew Mountain Man (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Julian Trevelyan (pianist)

Hi David,

You deleted Julian Trevelyan (pianist) this morning; or someone called Iridescent did following your comment "He is a 17-year-old boy".

I am surprised that you are an ageist as well as a sexist.

You may also not be aware the concert pianist is a career as old and interesting as golf, or tennis, bull-fighting or diving, perhaps more interesting for those who play the piano. Beethoven was the most successful concert pianist in Bonn before he became the most successful composer in the world. And he was only a 17-year-old boy.

If a 17-year old boy or girl wins an Olympic medal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marjorie_Gestring), or fights a bull (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9s_Roca_Rey), or wins a golf major (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Tom_Morris) Wikipedia is happy to host a page. So I think that you are being unduly harsh.

Anyway, Julian had already asked me to modify the text, and perhaps I could qualify my comment. For your information, the Thibaud-Long competition is one of the 3 or 4 top piano competitions in the world, and Julian is the youngest ever winner. No British pianist that I know of has a similar pedigree. I have researched Wikipedia extensively, as well as the results tables of every major piano competition and the biography pages of every Top 4 (Tchaikovsky, Chopin, Long, Leeds) winner, and not found any British pianist to compare. Last year, in the Top 4 competitions, Julian was the only British finalist. So I stand by my view, but if you want the offending comment removed, I will do so, to keep the page up (which I copied from the French).

Thanks very much for your suggestions on how best to proceed. Tony — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendlyyours137 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:PROD. If you are actually stepping forward to fix the article so that it is not likely to be put up for deletion again, we can immediately restore it to draft article space for fixing up. Please also closely read WP:BLP and WP:RS - living biographies, particularly of minors, have to be very well cited to be allowed to stay - David Gerard (talk) 09:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, David, of course, I am stepping forward to improve the article. Please restore it to draft space. I will re-read the articles you cite, as suggested. Many thanks Friendlyyours137 (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, David, your point about NOR is acknowledged. It is not necessarily obvious to a first-time editor of Wikipedia. Friendlyyours137 (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's now at Draft:Julian_Trevelyan_(pianist). Cheers for working on it :-) - David Gerard (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding issues with my articles

David - I was not aware that I was making so many mistakes -- especially my use of primary sources. Thank you for identifying them. I will work to bring the articles in question to up Wikipedia standards. I have tried adding more appropriate references in the limited free time that I have -- I realize that some were not up to snuff (I do apologize for adding the contents of an entire web article to the reference section of one page -- that was indeed accidental); however, I believe that some were unfairly removed/marked as inadequate sources. I will be more thorough and diligent in future edits. RGReiber (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please take a second look at Max Hellerstein? I've revised it and removed some content that could be deemed promotional.RGReiber (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you reverted all of my recent edits? I have tried to improve the article and asked for your feedback. Please explain. RGReiber (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that you are editing the article on a paid basis, so are definitely not the person to remove an "advert" tag from the article - David Gerard (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding of AniBoom

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from AniBoom, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Jpcase (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding random passing mentions doesn't actually constitute good sourcing. I did one round of tagging, a second of digesting what was usable from the sources and a third of culling the three-quarters of the article that was entirely unsourced or self-sourced - if you want to help, please do add information from non-self-sourced RSes that aren't just passing mentions - David Gerard (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking through the sources that I added and taking the next step; it wasn't really my intention to get involved with editing this article. I just saw that it had been prodded and determined that, at the very least, an AfD should be held. Personally, I feel quite strongly that if an article meets WP:GNG - as appears to be the case with Aniboom - then it shouldn't be deleted (though merging or redirecting might still be appropriate in some cases). In the spirit of WP:NPOSSIBLE, my goal was simply to show that the sources exist. If you or anyone else now wants to work on incorporating them into the article, then that's great! I may join you, if time permits. But I've never felt that an article should be deleted, just because proper work hasn't been done on it yet. --Jpcase (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am entirely unconvinced it meets GNG, specifically WP:CORP ... but we'll see if anyone shows up in the next few days - David Gerard (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure what you're looking for. The GNG doesn't seem to specify an exact number of sources that are required, so perhaps everyone has their own take on this. Personally, I've never been too demanding. So long as a small handful of quality sources have discussed the topic in detail, then I generally feel that GNG has been satisfied. You may feel otherwise, in which case an AfD would be perfectly appropriate. But between the Google News results [3], Google Book results [4], and the HighBeam results [5], I really do feel that notability can be displayed. --Jpcase (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN discussion

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The specific section is here:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Administrator_Log — xaosflux Talk 10:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

>_< useful tools procedurally booby-trapped ... cheers - David Gerard (talk) 11:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hired armed tender Elizabeth

Hi David Gerard, I see that the Iron Law of Oligarchy wins again. And Wikipedia wonders why editors are getting thinner and thinner on the ground. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a recovered PROD, it's something people can just ask for, but personal attacks are probably not the way to go - David Gerard (talk) 06:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Hi David,

I am creating genuine companies wiki pages like teabox & bookmyshow , please advice me in improving these pages rather then simple deletion. I really want to work on this pages to keep it in compliance with wiki standards.

Kiranhota (talk) 05:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At this point WP:V, WP:RS, WP:PEACOCK and possibly WP:COI. Claims need to be (a) stated factually (b) cited to a third-party reliable source (so, not company web pages or press releases) - David Gerard (talk) 08:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I reverted a couple of edits of yours and I wanted to let you know why. When an article for an arm-wrestler named "Dave Patton" was deleted, you removed wikilinks from two basketball templates. These redlinks were for a different Dave Patton altogether, who was a notable major college basketball coach. I rrestored these as the redlinks encourage article creation, but in my research I realized it was a different Patton altogether that was PRODed. I wasn't even aware the arm-wrestler article existed and have no opinion on the PROD. Cheers Rikster2 (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no problem! Yeah, the wikilinks would have been going to the wrong guy all that time ... if your guy is definitely article-worthy, this shouldn't stand in the way of someone writing about them at all. (Also, PRODs are reversible on request, except sometimes BLPPRODs or spammy PRODs ...) - David Gerard (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Ashish Hemrajani & BookMyShow Page

Hi David,

Thanks for your help David, basis on your comments we have removed few unwanted references from both Ashish Hemrajani & BookMyShow Page (since they seemed promotional) and have added 1 new reference based on the important contribution made by Ashish Hemrajani. It would be great if you help us with detailed info on which section our page is showing promotional content, we would do the needful changes/edits as we don't want these pages to be deleted. If you want we will be more careful in future edits, just enlighten us with necessary guidelines. PrajaktaN (talk) 08:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duchy of Merania

Hi David, could you point me to the deletion discussion for this article please. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was a WP:PROD that expired. Reason given by the proposer was: "Article is a hoax created for the commercial purpose of selling a faux title of aristocarcy. As per discussion, page should be blanked and article title (Duchy of Merania)redirected to Counts of Andechs". [Said discussion was on the old talk page, which I should probably put back.] I can recreate it in draft space if you want to work on the text that was there (or make it all about the 5th-century one or whatever), mindful that commercial hoaxers seem to have had an eye on it ... - David Gerard (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No that's fine, I also came across the site trying to sell a title, but there does appear to have been a real Duchy of Merania created in 1152/53 and lasted just under a hundred years. There were apparently five dukes of Merania. There is an article on German Wikipedia about this which I could translate. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would be an excellent outcome :-) And if we can find RSes discussing the hoaxers, that would be a marvellous thing to add ... - David Gerard (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The duchy of Merania was definitely a real thing. Could you restore the article and talk page to draft space so I could have a look? Thanks. Srnec (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page is already back in place at Talk:Duchy of Merania. Last text is now at User:Srnec/Duchy of Merania - David Gerard (talk) 22:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we have something to work with. I see the article referred to a second Duchy of Merania during the time of the German Empire. That sounds more dubious, but we can research it. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Glanton Page

Hi David,

The Richard Glanton page was deleted although we followed the guidelines of disclosing our paid relationship with Mr. Glanton in our Talk page as directed by Wiki.

Please advise.

Thanks!

Heather @BTaylorPA — Preceding unsigned comment added by BtaylorPA (talk • contribs) 18:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't save articles from deletion. It was deleted under WP:PROD, and it appears the nominator's reason was "promo / undisclosed COI / promo WP:NOTPROMO WP:NOTHERE" - that is, it was so clearly promotional it was marked for death and nobody objected in seven days, so it was killed. PROD is without prejudice, so it could be recreated, but would likely be taken to WP:AFD if it were in the same condition. If you like I can restore it to a Draft: space for further work, but it's evident it wasn't up to community standards in the condition it was. (I don't have time to closely assist in getting it into shape, unfortunately, but think in terms of writing something for the harshest bunch of volunteer editors ...) - David Gerard (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi David. Please could you restore the above article so I can bring the following links which highlight McEleneys's notability under WP:GNG to the attention of those who voted to delete the article in the deletion debate. I realise the deletion debate was only recently but unfortunately I didn't get the chance to do this then and it got deleted very speedily. See: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. They are just an example of some of the articles relating to McEleney showing coverage across a range of national and international media. In addition to this there are countless articles about him in the Derry Journal, e.g. [13]. While this is a local paper it has an extensive readership across the North-west of Ireland. Many thanks, --IrishTennis (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I've restored it to Draft:Patrick_McEleney, talk page also - move it to main space when you've got it shaped up - David Gerard (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks!--IrishTennis (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could I request the same in relation to the article about Ronan Finn who I also feel meets the WP:GNG guidelines? Would appreciate it if you just put it up as a draft for now and I will get a chance to work on both in the next couple of days. --IrishTennis (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Draft:Ronan Finn, with talk page - David Gerard (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hi David, I have improved both articles and added a significant amount of references showing that both players meet the WP:GNG. Please could you transfer both draft articles back to the original pages please for further discussion if required, as I don't wish for it to seem like I've gone ahead and copied them across without admin approval. Thanks --IrishTennis (talk) 04:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's not even a slight problem with you moving them - but what I would suggest is that you run them past the WikiProject first - probably posting to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football and seeing if anyone objects to them going to main article space in their present condition - David Gerard (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete?

Hello, im an editor for the page "The Exclusives", i would like to know why would you delete their discography page? it did not violate any guidelines and was very accurateMcjeanty (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Exclusives discography was a redirect to The Exclusives production discography, which I deleted as an expired WP:PROD (my role was bureaucratic, pressing "delete" on an expired nomination). The nominator's reason was "Made by SPA & COI editor. Poor list. This production duo are not very notable and this is just a vanity page listing every work of theirs in a terrible format. completely lacks sources" So it could be recreated (in most cases PRODs can just be recreated), but if it wasn't clearly well sourced and so forth then it would likely end up at WP:AFD. I can restore it to draft space for further work if you think you can fully source it to Wikipedia standards so it doesn't get nominated straight away - David Gerard (talk) 09:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ethereum Classic

In my creation of the page, I was creating a stub with the goal of:

  • reducing a turf war between the ETHians and the ETCians.
  • allowing Ethereum Classic to strut its stuff outside of the shadow of Ethereum. Ethereum Classic immensely disagrees with the philosophy and direction of Ethereum and I'd prefer to respect that.
  • make ETCians happy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romanpoet (talk • contribs) 14:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly :-) Per talk page though, I don't think the consensus is that it's time to split the page yet. Also, the actual observed trouble has been drive-by IPs - David Gerard (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

D'aoh! - David Gerard (talk) 10:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 28 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fannin Innovation Studio page

Dear David,

I was a little surprised to see the Fannin Innovation Studio page removed because it was considered 'advertisement'. I will be frank - I created the page, and I work there. But I love the neutrality of Wikipedia, and I was very careful not to put a single statement in there that could not be backed by neutral references (usually from the public media). Initially, the page was flagged as having insufficient references. Later on, some other user added many more references (and made the page better, IMHO) and the flag was removed. Then I realized that the page has been removed last night without a warning. Like everybody who has been subjected to authoritarian whims of people who have the power to make arbitrary decisions, my first reaction was - 'But there must have been a mistake. I'll explain it nicely and things will get back to where it was'.

Fannin is bringing about a quiet revolution in biotechnology startup management. It has the backing of all the major institutions at the Texas Medical Center (the single largest Medical Center in the world, according to Wikipedia) and has been featured multiple times in the local media. Two of its portfolio companies have attracted serious funding and won several national tech competitions. On the flip side, it does not belong to the high profile environments like Boston and the Silicon Valley. However, I had always had the idea that Wikipedia does not play favorites in that regard. If you wish, I can provide you a list of all the similar incubators from those regions whose pages grace Wikipedia. Few of them claim to have created a new model of incubation, though.

But explaining and examples never really help, do they? Since it appears that Wikipedia runs on the word of a few individuals like yourself, I guess all I can do at this point is ask what recourse one has in a situation like this. Appeal to someone else who has an inkling why Fannin is notable? Wait until our Nature Biotechnology paper about this new model gets published? Will that be notable? I wonder.

Well thanks anyway. I always thought that a few uninformed individuals make decisions beyond themselves only in the real world. Nice to have dispelled that notion.

With gratitude,

````Dev — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.136.62.130 (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Hi There,

Thank you for you recent actions, I have incorporated improvements to the articles as you requested. If you still feel they lack notability please let me know and I will support the article deletion. I appreciated you taking the time to review my edits. Thank you David

Ymd2004 (talk) 12:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly by putting in a bin and setting on fire.

Well played, sir, well played. Usually I wince upon seeing the clichéd expression "kill it with fire," but for this particular article, it was a brilliant quip. Altamel (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can hardly believe they literally called their product a dumpster fire - David Gerard (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Kostas20142. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Dischan Media, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Kostas20142 (talk) 11:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Dischan Media

Hello, David Gerard. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Dischan Media, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

  1. edit the page
  2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
  3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Kostas20142 (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This title was literally just killed at AFD, so PROD isn't possible any more. If you want to RFD, go for it, I'm not worried either way - David Gerard (talk) 12:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

undo

what did you mean? (this was literally just killed at AFD, so PROD isn't possible. If you want to RFD go for it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostas20142 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Check WP:PROD - if anything's been subject to an AFD, it can't be killed at PROD even if the seven days elapses. (This can be annoying because it's not always evident in the interface, but it's the rule.) Also, PROD is for articles - redirects should go to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion (WP:RFD) - David Gerard (talk) 12:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


About the article Kawarga from Kawalena

Dear David Gerard. it's bad a news that you want to delete the page about Dmitry Kawarga and especially sad that you call him unimportant artist. I just have to say - you can't found any photo of him in internet, because of the special art-position of Dmitry Kawarga. He shows only his works, not his person. David Gerard (talk), 3 September 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kawalena (talk • contribs) 17:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP and WP:RS are fairly strict - David Gerard (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Piggate

Hi David. Re. your revert a couple of days ago, would you mind having a quick look at Piggate Talk? Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Stitt

Hello, I am on the fence out this article. As you noticed, it was a cut-n-paste bio from a while back, before I made one pass in 2013. I think he seemed to make a historically significant role in both FDDI and Extreme Networks, and then served on some boards, at least of which is public. Only one of those might not be enough notability, but perhaps altogether. It might be worth a rescue, at least one attempt at updating. Thanks W Nowicki (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was marginal and the sources weren't much about him as such ... but if you think it's saveable then that would be by far the best outcome - David Gerard (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vox Day

Do you think John Scalzi's personal blog is an appropriate source? It's been there in the article for some time with no objection, so I think you have to admit others. You're not going to find analysis of the Hugo voting stats in a a Slate or Guardian news article. Actually both made errors this year in reporting Day's stance on the nominees, as both indicated Day did not support "Folding Beijing" in 2016, when the novelette is clearly there in the slate of recommendations he published on his blog in March. This is poor reporting, regardless of the reputation of the publications. Chaos Horizon is a reputable industry blog, not affiliated with Vox Day in any way, and it's a much better source than Scalzi's personal blog. I think the analyses should be attached to the article to show what Day recommended and how his following voted on Liu's The Three Body Problem.

Aside from the question of source quality, I'm concerned about the neutrality of this article. It appears editors have picked and chosen sources (such as Scalzi) and made interpretations that show Day's in a negative light when closer analysis (from sources like Chaos Horizon) show he does support diversity, for example, and that his argument with the Hugo's may be about the type of fiction, after all. It's not Wikipedia's role to establish whether or not Day is a bigot, only to provide the facts. Pkeets (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I added the info back with different sources. The first statement is easy to source, as the change in the Hugo ballot was reported by industry mags. I've also referenced Day's blog where he posts his support of The Three Body Problem as first choice for the Best Novel Award. The analysis that showed the Rabid Puppy vote was instrumental in pushing Liu's book over the top is particular to Chaos Horizon, but I've attached the stats issued by the Hugo committee so people can make their own analysis. Again, I think this is an important addition to the article that lends to a more neutral POV. Erasing Day's support of minority writers is misleading. Pkeets (talk)
I'd suspect a direct cite to Scalzi's blog for something other than the fact of Scalzi saying something would not be appropriate either. The BLP rules can leave controversial BLPs anodyne, but blogs still aren't RSes except in particular circumstances - David Gerard (talk) 07:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I must note that I'm sympathetic to the general problem - WP:RS and popular culture aren't a great mix. But when one reaches the stage of researching blogs to prove a point, there's a terrible danger of WP:SYNTH which we really can't have in BLPs - David Gerard (talk) 10:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Scalzi's blog is cited for the statement on withdrawal of finalists and I can't see that it's for anything he said. I've referenced Vox Day's blog to verify he posted his support for "Finding Beijing" and The Three Body Problem. Chaos Horizon did the voting stats analysis that showed the Puppy vote contributed substantially to their winning the award. Do you think I should write these statements separately to avoid the problem of WP:SYNTH? Pkeets (talk) 12:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say at this stage, it's one to take to Talk:Vox Day and see what can be hashed out as reasonable - David Gerard (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fede Pistono/Article deleted

Hi David,

I noticed you speedy deleted the article Fede Pistono. I saw you listed as reasons G4 and G11.

I've been following his work for many years and I come from a town nearby where he was born. Last week a friend and I decided to write the article. We did it from scratch, so I don't understand how G4 can be possible (we don't even know what the previous article said/was).

As for G11, we tried to be as factual as possible and only used external, reliable, and notable sources with Neutral Point of View (New Scientist, BBC, MIT technology Review, etc.). We're not experts at Wikipedia so I'm sure the article could have been improved, but I don't understand how/why it was speedy deleted, if neither G4 nor G11 apply.

What do you think could/should have been improved in the article?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.242.185.193 (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Run it through Articles For Creation, take on board the suggestions, move slowly - David Gerard (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you! 77.242.185.193 (talk) 11:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

Sainbari incident vandalised by 103.70.209.178 twice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostas20142 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

cheers. Autoconfirmed for 24 hours - David Gerard (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Bookmyshow

Dear David,

Can you please help me with the major reason for deletion of Bookmyshow wiki page. I want to work on that page and was actively looking for reference to support. You can see that lot of pages are linking to bookmyshow inside wikipedia as well.

Can you please restore Bookmyshow page for further work. Please advice. 


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiranhota (talk • contribs) 08:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted via an AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bookmyshow, so you would need to go through WP:DRV - David Gerard (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear David,

I have requested for recovery of this page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#bookmyshow Hope this help or what is the right way to handle this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiranhota (talk • contribs) 15:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome

Thanks for the welcome! *coughs blood* ConsumptiveOcelot (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Why the delete of my 2 new pages?

I am shocked that you deleted my 2 new pages JSCAPE and JSCAPE MFT Server. These were very factual, neutral articles about a software product that listed the core features and about a company and the software they offer. Nothing marketing like material and the references were reviewed and revised to include ONLY known software blogs reviews. I spent several cycles to address other tags and in the end these got deleted. You also deleted an older page AnyClient that is also a product of JSCAPE and you removed all the pertinent link from related articles to the articles I wrote. This is quite interesting how you removed any trace of this software that you deemed not notable.

I want to know how this can be reverted. Thanks. --Laviniaknowswiki (talk) 03:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JSCAPE was deleted as "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion", and JSCAPE MFT Server and AnyClient were expired PRODs. They can be recreated for you to keep working on them - PRODs can mostly just be undeleted on request - but I must note that in the condition they were in, they would probably be sent to WP:AFD pretty much immediately - they'd really need to be brought up to Wikipedia standards, with third-party independent sources that meet WP:RS, etc. Would you like me to recreate them in Draft: space for you to work on? - David Gerard (talk) 11:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David than you for feedback. On JSCAPE MFT and Anyclient - yes please recreate them in Draft. I've never worked in this 'draft' mode. Is it similar to the sandbox that I use to write before publishing?
Regarding JSCAPE I have the content in wiki code saved in a word doc and I can work on it in my sandbox. I would like to simplify the content to make it acceptable to reviews like your. What is the best way to vet the content before pushing it live? Appreciate your help on this. --Laviniaknowswiki (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:JSCAPE MFT Server and Draft:AnyClient are restored. Wikipedia:Drafts sets out how the process works - anyone can edit, but they're out of Google view, etc. and you can just get on with editing them. You may want to run it past Wikipedia:Articles for creation before taking it live. Basically the advice I can give is lots of cites to sources that pass WP:RS - David Gerard (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
David - thanks for articles restore. I'll work on it. --Laviniaknowswiki (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David - I merged JSCAPE and their products articles AnyClient and MFT Server into a single wiki article. I have it as a draft now [[14]]. I removed all references that are not secondary (blogs, 3rd party reviews) and drafted the content to be factual and straight forward. Any chance you can please review it and let me know if it complies with the wiki guidelines so, I can publish it? Thanks --LVWikiContributor 03:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laviniaknowswiki (talk • contribs)
Hi David - any feedback on my new draft? Just wanted to see if you've seen the note above. If busy, no problem. I'll keep checking here. Thanks. --LVWikiContributor 04:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laviniaknowswiki (talk • contribs)

"Wikipedia uses denial"

Did you have some reference to support this? Its in relation to reversion on Malcolm Roberts who is in the headlines at the moment. Before I ask the WP:AWNB for more eyes I want a link to something on our usage of the term. - Shiftchange (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is at climate change denial. And really, Roberts does literally deny that the evidenced climate change is happening; Cox brought that graph because he knew he'd actually need it - David Gerard (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete of SQLBoiler page

Hi David. It appears you are the man to speak to about getting the SQLBoiler page undeleted. At the time, I will agree with you, there was little relevance on Google (because the open source project had JUST released). At present, there is now a lot of cross-talk to support this wiki, including quickly growing support on github. I'd like to update the page with a bunch of references from the first page of Google, not limited to but including:

https://github.com/vattle/sqlboiler

https://go.libhunt.com/project/sqlboiler/vs/gomodel

https://golanglibs.com/top?q=sqlboiler

Including discussions on stackoverflow.

Please let me know how I can proceed with this. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nullbio (talk • contribs) 12:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I've restored it to Draft:SQLBoiler so you can work on it without pressure before taking it live again. (See Wikipedia:Drafts for how the draft space works.)
I must note though, those probably aren't going to pass muster as third-party sourcing - the relevant guidelines are WP:RS (think of "Reliable Sources" as Wikipedia jargon rather than English) and WP:NSOFT. That last is just a guideline, but one that people tend to look to - David Gerard (talk) 13:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you David, I'll do some more research into those and see what I can come up with. If I can't find anything to satisfy the criteria I'll leave it for a later date once the project obtains more notoriety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nullbio (talk • contribs) 17:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor

To me this guy seems really out of control [15] with ownership issues on some of the crypto money articles. I have also asked him directly if he is involved, owns the stuff, etc. I already know he is heavily involved because of a simple Google search where he is a public person on the subject. I think he is sugar coating stuff and removing stuff that is neutral in an attempt to unbalance the article toward promotion of the subject. Earl King (talk) 10:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May be worth taking to WP:COIN with as much detail as you can, without falling afoul of the super-stringent outing rules. Perhaps say "I have a strong belief, based on easily-visible off-wiki evidence, that this editor has a severe financial COI on cryptocurrency matters, if any arbitrator would like the details I would be most pleased to supply my sources and reasoning off-wiki" or similar. Add detailed problematic edits to your public report. - David Gerard (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) .. and emphasis that outing rules here REALLY are super-stringent, more stringent then COI rules, and many folks thinking they are acting in good faith are surprised of the WP:BOOMERANG block they receive. But on a lighter note: everyone is invited to join the Cryptocurrency task force to help improve cryptocurrency coverage on the 'pedia. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Papoleto Melendez

This article has been up since 2012. I made an update on the status of a book, from forthcoming to current. Why is this now a problem? Gdavid01 (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problems are outlined in considerable detail at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#The_Intercultural_Alliance_of_Artists_.26_Scholars.2C_Inc._.28IAAS.29 - David Gerard (talk) 07:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandi Bachom

Thanks for commenting. There's quite a long history of this sort of thing from this editor, and it hasn't been easy to build a case for sanctions against an editor of this seniority, on what some see as borderline behavior. More eyes keeping a watch would likely help. —swpbT 20:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get stuck into others personally. But those sources were ... not good - David Gerard (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toxik Ephex

Yup, you are right. Thanks ;) -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete of Expertus page

UPDATE: Hello David, just wanted to follow-up on my request below. Is it possible to have the article restored so that I can address the issues? Thank you very much. I appreciate your time and guidance. Belcanto14 (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, wanted to contact you regarding the deletion of the Expertus page. Would like a chance to address any issues with the page. Many other LMS companies listed on this page --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_learning_management_systems, not sure how the Expertus page differed greatly from these, but would like to improve it under wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you for your help. Belcanto14 (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

5pm article

UPDATE: I am sorry for bothering you again, but can you look into my request below? I hope to not have to start the article from scratch. If you are busy, please suggest who else I can contact about it. Otherwise I will wait for your help. Thank you in advance.

Hello. I was one of the contributors to the "5pm" page. It was deleted recently because it needed to be updated and the deadline expired (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=5pm&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&subtype=). Unfortunately, I was not active on Wikipedia lately to review the article in time. Could you restore the article as a draft so I can work on it? I am trying to help maintain this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_project_management_software and this article is part of the effort. Thank you! NancyJeanGF (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restored to Draft:5pm. Note that it's been deleted a lot of times over the years, so before taking it live I suggest you run it past AFC or something, 'cos in its present condition I suspect it would fail at AFD - David Gerard (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I am aware this article is an old one. I did not participate with earlier edits. What is AFC/AFD? I did not edit for a while, so I forgot some terminology. Just refer me to the article to read on that. I want to make sure I submit it correctly. As I understand, the best way to improve the article is to search for new references, from qualified sites. Thank you. NancyJeanGF (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for creation, which looks over prospective articles and suggests whether they are likely to survive as Wikipedia articles. WIkipedia:Articles for deletion is where the ones that aren't end up :-) - David Gerard (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, David Gerard. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for your contribution and time. Including support to wiki community by your suggestions. Light2021 (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


:-D - David Gerard (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran Read Wikipedia page

Hi David, I noticed that the first couple of sections of Kieran Read Wikipedia page are not sourced at all with any citations. Does that comply with WP:GNG? Eddard 'Ned' Stark (talk) 10:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably bad prcitce for a WP:BLP. However, it doesn't raise a WP:GNG question - that would be a question of sources, which are pretty clear he almost certainly does. I would suggest for a start going through the listed sources, seeing what claims in those bits can be sourced, and noting what bits don't on the talk page - David Gerard (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

webERP Wikipedia page

Hello, I am an editor for the page "webERP" in some languages, I would like to know why would you delete this page in English? It did not violate any guidelines and I was updating from pages in other languages. RafaelEChaconRafaelEChacon (talk) 04:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expired WP:PROD. I must note that in its present form, even if restored, it would almost certainly be deleted again - David Gerard (talk) 09:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am updating software pages. This software has more history, a bigger community, and more downloads than some other software that have pages. Please undo that.RafaelEChacon (talk) 13:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restored to Draft:WebERP. I strongly urge you to address the PROD concerns - "I frankly am considering this G11 since it's going overboard with the software specifications, and my own searches are simply finding unconvincing and trivial links, nothing of actual substance." and "Nothng has changed (literally nothing) since I tagged this as an advert nearly a year ago." - before you take it live again, else it'll just go to AFD and, in its present condition, I predict it'll be quickly deleted. There are indeed other articles this bad, and that's why we have a deletion process to get rid of them - David Gerard (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

webERP was one of the first web-based accounting systems released written from the ground up as a web-application before web apps became de rigueur. There have been over 600k downloads of this app. Let's work towards getting the necessary citations to improve the quality of the entry.(Phil Daintree - not registered user) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.246.39.237 (talk) 08:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

replacing knife capital and andrea bohmert

Hi, I would like the opportunity to address the issues in the Knife Capital and Andrea Bohmert articles you deleted yesterday. Please could you reinstate them so that i can make changes. if you google each you will see that there is many primary source that can be referenced. Im not particularly experienced in wikipedia so please could you afford me the opportunity to make these better as i know that they community supports people who try to improve whats there rather than deleting significant material. I think its worth noting that just because a company is in South Africa and not the west, doesn't mean its not significant. Thanks, Phil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnstonphil (talk • contribs) 11:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restored to draft as Draft:Knife Capital and Draft:Andrea Böhmert. I must note that in their present condition they'd end up at AFD and probably deleted, so after you've worked on them you may want to run them past AFC before taking them live - David Gerard (talk) 12:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zeek Wikipedia page

How did you come to the conclusion that telecomnews.co.il "appears to be a Bitcoin promotional blog" ? Is it just your own opinion? Ymd2004 (talk) 8:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Nothing with a heading "Bitcoin Forums" can be anything like a reliable source for information on a non-bitcoin company - David Gerard (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xshell Page Deletion

Hello. It looks like you have deleted the Xshell page for it being too promotional. The page was modeled off the SecureCRT page which has not been deleted. Can you give additional advice to get the Xshell page up to standard? Can you put it in draft mode so I can work on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunghanak (talk • contribs) 20:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, the SecureCRT page looks pretty dubious too. But the main thing is lots of third-party coverage in Reliable Sources. Something to demonstrate third parties have actually heard of this thing and written about it.
The other thing is: writing a Wikipedia article about your own stuff is almost never going to work out well. The real answer is "wait until it's so clearly noteworthy that others are inspired to write about it." - David Gerard (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns about writing about our own stuff. We're working on the third-party coverage aspect. Can we get the page restored as a draft? Sunghanak (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Restored to Draft:Xshell - David Gerard (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Veronika Exler

Hello David. You deleted an article attempt about the Austrian chess player Veronika Exler. Could you send me the deleted article, for example with the Wikipedia e-mail function? I am planning to write an article about her for the German language Wikipedia. On de.wikipedia she is notable by default for winning the Austrian chess championship 2013. Thanks, --Gereon K. (talk) 11:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The complete wikitext was:

'''Veronika Exler''' is an Austrian chess player who holds the title of [[Woman FIDE Master]]. She was born on 24 December 1990.

She won the women's [[Austrian Chess Championship]] in 2013.

She has played for Austria in four women's [[Chess Olympiad]]s between 2010-2016. She has also played in four [[European Team Chess Championship]]s between 2009-2015

She achieved her highest [[Elo rating]] of 2240 in February 2016.
- without a single reference. So if that's useful to you ... - David Gerard (talk) 11:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not usefull at all since this contains nothing beyond the most easily referancable stats. But thank you and have a great weekend. --Gereon K. (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can see why it was BLPPRODed :-) - David Gerard (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And here's the referenced article that I was writing yesterday: de:Veronika Exler. :-) --Gereon K. (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Empiresmod deletion

I'm trying to contest your deletion of my favourite game. Empiresmod has been around since 2007, but still has a vibrant community on the forums. We're struggling to get enough players to be able to play 24/7. It seems some people want our wikipedia page deleted, but I don't see why.

Why do you want to delete our wikipedia page?

TamaMcGlinn (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empires (video game)? The reasons it got deleted are laid out there. Basically, there's no evidence of any noteworthiness at all that make something suitable for Wikipedia. You could appeal the deletion at Deletion Review, but I predict the deletion would be confirmed.
What it really needs to stay is lots of third-party coverage that meets the requirements of WP:RS. If you think it can get that, I'd be happy to recreate it in draft space for you to work on - see WP:DRAFTS - and then, when you think it's ready to go live, run it past Articles For Creation to see if they think it'd survive this time - David Gerard (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I'm going to work on the article in my own userspace to get it up to standards. I think it is a bit strange to need to have "lots of third-party coverage" for a videogame - surely people wouldn't dispute that it exists? I wonder if you could shed some light on why this demand exists for information that can be reproduced by anyone with a steam account and 5GB of free space. - TamaMcGlinn (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For verifiability, basically. Wikipedia:Your first article is probably a good starting guide to what we want in an article. A lot of the answer to "why are we such hardarses about third-party sourcing" is "spammers mean we can't have nice things", unfortunately - David Gerard (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RLN articles deleted

The RLN is under debate with a potential overhaul in the offing. In the meantime could I ask that the articles deleted for Stuart Kain, Sam Crowther and Stewart Sanderson be sent to my sandbox so that they can be worked on and reinstated were the rationale overhaul for RLN see them eligible.Fleets (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

no worries, I'll get to it this evening - David Gerard (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Fleets/Stuart Kain, User:Fleets/Sam Crowther, User:Fleets/Stewart Sanderson, with full article history - David Gerard (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged.Fleets (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biogeography based optimization

Can you tell me why the article "Biogeography based optimization" was deleted? --137.148.143.87 (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Dan Simon[reply]

Thank you sir!

Thank you Sir, for your advises and neutral approach. Light2021 (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
:-D You're doing excellent work finding spam articles at a rate I'm amazed by. The hard part will be how to convince everyone else that they need deletion ... - David Gerard (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of Paul F. Jacobs (archaeologist) entry

Hello, just wondering if you could provide some detail about why this entry was deleted? I asked a student to set up a page, but I didn't get a chance to edit it or add external links before it disappeared. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.18.228.194 (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expired WP:PROD. I can recreate it if you want - I'd suggest in Draft space until it's ready to go live - David Gerard (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great - thanks very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.18.228.194 (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restored to Draft:Paul F. Jacobs. Note that it was a biography of a living person without Wikipedia-quality sources, so it'll need those before going live again if it's to survive. Also consider "notability", e.g. WP:GNG or WP:PROF. (This can get complicated, but generally if someone's even a bit famous in their field they're likely to have something to this.) - David Gerard (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Manika Kaur page

Hi David, just wondering if you could give some details as to why this entry was deleted? It would be helpful to know as I thought it did have quite a variety of different sources? Thanks Blue Mountain Coffee Beans (talk) 10:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G4._Recreation_of_a_page_that_was_deleted_per_a_deletion_discussion - David Gerard (talk) 10:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the reason in the ‘deletion discussion’ why the previous version of the page was deleted, there was insufficient sources (the last comment was that it "needed a lot better sources than YouTube"): Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Manika_Kaur

The current version had over 26 different sources including Pop Matters, MTV, CCQ Magazine, and Hindustani Times. Blue Mountain Coffee Beans (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it can be brought back as an article that would survive, I can happily restore it as a draft for you if you like. When you think it's ready to go live, I suggest running it past WP:AFC for a helpful acerbic eye - David Gerard (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that'd be great. It would be helpful to also know what was the main reason why it was deemed inadequate. Thanks. Blue Mountain Coffee Beans (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aubrey Wade AfD

I understand what you're saying, and just so you know, I keep a cool head at AfD. It is never my intention to be negative on Wikipedia. However, you stated at the discussion that deprodding the article was somehow deviant, but my intentions are pure. Please keep this in mind, because I consider it to be a bit inappropriate to scold a user for doing something wrong when nothing wrong has actually occurred. I understand that some users did not like my use of the sofixit template in two unrelated discussions, and I will keep this in mind, but it makes no sense to tell me to "cool it" in this discussion about this subject, again, because I have done no wrong. Also, I have used the sofixit template in the past with no objections whatsoever. Please assume good faith, and thanks for your consideration. North America1000 10:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes and Fortune are different magazines

Hello. Would like to know why the correction was undone. Thanks

Somelearner (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably an error on my part, then. Which edit was this? - David Gerard (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Shah

Hi, David. I see you've recently been answering a lot of requests for copies of deleted articles. Would you be so kind as to userfy for me the version of Rajesh Shah that got deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajesh Shah (2nd nomination)? I'd like to compare it to the current version to see if the sourcing has improved. (I just purged the article of a bunch material sourced only to Shah himself, so if all the remaining third-party sources are the same ones used in the previous article, the current version probably qualifies for speedy deletion or at least another AfD nomination.) —Psychonaut (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Psychonaut/Rajesh Shah - just the last rev with which it was AFDed - David Gerard (talk) 13:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I'll take a look. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate articles

I've noticed your interests sometimes focus on corporate articles, particularly at AfD and promotionalism. Just wanted to point to a 2014 study "Crowd Governance: The Monitoring Role of Wikipedia in the Financial Market". It found when a public company had a Wikipedia page created, it's stock value went down. The supposed reason is because Wikipedia increases transparency, and certain stock investors no longer believe they have an edge on information or insight into the company and exit the stock. As such deletion of certain articles can be to the benefit of the corporation and a loss to public transparency. Obviously not every corporation is notable and should be deleted, but sometimes it's a grey line and a question of cleanup and rewrite. -- GreenC 14:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a point to argue to the corporations ... I've done quite a bit of outreach to corporate and PR over the years, so know a bit of the area ... it's all a pretty vexed question. The drive for a Wikipedia article is often ego rather than good sense, and small-to-medium company executives can go into overdrive over a Wikipedia article that actually gets 10 hits/day ... - David Gerard (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph P. Watkins

Not sure how you could say with a straight face there weren't enough sources available for Joseph P. Watkins, there was a good deal of in-depth coverage by the Inquirer. SALTing it wouldn't do much good, since you see him fairly frequently on MSNBC and he has been in various important projects, not to mention running for office. The article looked bad but I have cleaned it up some, still needs more work though. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 16:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was lots of shallow and passing coverage, and just running for election specifically doesn't count for Wikipedia notability - David Gerard (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know that. I simply said he ran for election in addition to his other achievements. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 19:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you think you can make notability clear for him, then that'll be good :-) - David Gerard (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing News #3—2016

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter • Subscribe or unsubscribe on the English Wikipedia

Did you know?

Did you know that you can easily re-arrange columns and rows in the visual editor?

Screenshot showing a dropdown menu with options for editing the table structure

Select a cell in the column or row that you want to move. Click the arrow at the start of that row or column to open the dropdown menu (shown). Choose either "Move before" or "Move after" to move the column, or "Move above" or "Move below" to move the row.

You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor Team has mainly worked on a new wikitext editor. They have also released some small features and the new map editing tool. Their workboard is available in Phabricator. You can find links to the list of work finished each week at mw:VisualEditor/Weekly triage meetings. Their current priorities are fixing bugs, releasing the 2017 wikitext editor as a beta feature, and improving language support.

Recent changes

  • You can now set text as small or big.[16]
  • Invisible templates have been shown as a puzzle icon. Now, the name of the invisible template is displayed next to the puzzle icon.[17] A similar feature will display the first part of hidden HTML comments.[18]
  • Categories are displayed at the bottom of each page. If you click on the categories, the dialog for editing categories will open.[19]
  • At many wikis, you can now add maps to pages. Go to the Insert menu and choose the "Maps" item. The Discovery department are adding more features to this area, like geoshapes. You can read more on MediaWiki.org.[20]
  • The "Save" button now says "Save page" when you create a page, and "Save changes" when you change an existing page.[21] In the future, the "Save page" button will say "Publish page". This will affect both the visual and wikitext editing systems. More information is available on Meta.
  • Image galleries now use a visual mode for editing. You can see thumbnails of the images, add new files, remove unwanted images, rearrange the images by dragging and dropping, and add captions for each image. Use the "Options" tab to set the gallery's display mode, image sizes, and add a title for the gallery.[22]

Future changes

The visual editor will be offered to all editors at the remaining 10 "Phase 6" Wikipedias during the next month. The developers want to know whether typing in your language feels natural in the visual editor. Please post your comments and the language(s) that you tested at the feedback thread on mediawiki.org. This will affect several languages, including Thai, Burmese and Aramaic.

The team is working on a modern wikitext editor. The 2017 wikitext editor will look like the visual editor and be able to use the citoid service and other modern tools. This new editing system may become available as a Beta Feature on desktop devices in October 2016. You can read about this project in a general status update on the Wikimedia mailing list.

Let's work together

Do you teach new editors how to use the visual editor? Did you help set up the Citoid automatic reference feature for your wiki? Have you written or imported TemplateData for your most important citation templates? Would you be willing to help new editors and small communities with the visual editor? Please sign up for the new VisualEditor Community Taskforce.

If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zoltan Istvan

Hi, thanks for fixing my mistake. I had missed the part of the source covering the content. As a small aside for the record, my edit was in good faith. Also, I added the February date of the media report, which I think is relevant here, as voting preferences can be subject to change. Gap9551 (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your dated version is better :-) - David Gerard (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biogeography based optimization

I don't understand why you haven't addressed by question about "Biogeography based optimization" (question posted on Oct. 5).137.148.143.87 (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Dan Simon[reply]

The answer's right there in the deletion message: "11:47, 25 July 2016 David Gerard (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Biogeography based optimization (G8: Redirect to a deleted or nonexistent page)". It was a redirect to "Biogeography-based optimization", which was deleted as an expired WP:PROD. One of a pile of such articles being PRODed at the time - David Gerard (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So can I request that "Biogeography-based optimization" be "un-deleted"?137.148.143.87 (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Dan Simon[reply]
Draft:Biogeography-based optimization - David Gerard (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Danieljohnsimon (talk) 12:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My article JSCAPE deleted ...again

David - I recreated the newly published JSCAPE article to include JSCAPE(the company) and Anyclient, JSCAPE MFT Server (2 of their software products). I tried several times to get your attention to the draft article to get feedback if this article is better (see above notes where I messaged you). I also created a draft on this too to get input and improve it. After removing any references that are not 3rd party reviews / blogs this article was deleted by you. The draft for this still exists but I don't underhand why I can't publish this article live. Putting some generic codes in the deletion tag doesn't help to improve the article or understand what's going on. What else can I do? --LVWikiContributor 20:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laviniaknowswiki (talk • contribs)

You used exactly the same bad sources as were in the deleted version. There was no new evidence of notability. As you strongly disagree with me, though, WP:DRV's opinion may be useful - David Gerard (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitri Vangelis & Wyman afd

Don't know if you were aware, or if it makes a difference to you, but the charting claimed is not the Ultratop 50 Singles or the Ultratip 50 Singles. It is the bubbling under chart. Songs that did not make the main chart. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? I thought it was the main chart ... that's getting a bit tangential - David Gerard (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[23] Link for chart site. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well ... well! - David Gerard (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Suisse AG references

Hi David

Your revision of 07:54, 14 October 2016 on Bitcoin Suisse AG pages states “(needs stronger refs than bitcoin blogs).”

Looking through the references the vast majority link to well-established newspapers and news outlets, both international and Swiss. As the first payment provider globally for a government body, Bitcoin Suisse is arguably a notable player in furthering the legitimacy of cryptocurrency in the mainstream markets and news.

If the comment is in relation to citing the Ethereum Blog - as written by Vitalik Buterin himself, this reference seems to be verifying a claim that Bitcoin Suisse AG has a re-occurring business relationship with the Ethereum Foundation, as stated by the chairman of the Ethereum Foundation, Vitalik Buterin. And there can hardly be a stronger source than the words of the ETH-Foundation itself. The claim is supported by number of reddit posts, to which the Ethereum Foundation has made no counterclaim, as well as online pictures of Vitalik Buterin (chairman) and Ming Chan (CEO) visiting Bitcoin Suisse AG / their mining facility, but I purposely did not include these weaker sources.

In my view, if Bitcoin Suisse AG is tightly associated with the Ethereum Foundation, the greater public deserves to know.

If related to CoinDesk, this is a proper news outlet, not just a blog.

If it is about Bitcoin News Schweiz, the point of the article is also fully described in the next reference from a well-established trade news publication: Marc Badertscher, (Apr 15, 2016), "Schweizer schürfen in Alpen nach Bitcoin-Konkurrenz" Handelszeitung. The Bitcoin News reference could therefore be removed, but since it provides further depth and nuance to the topic, and since the author was actually present at the opening of the mining facility and saw it and spoke to the key stakeholders - and since he has a multi-year track record as a Swiss bitcoin blogger, I considered it relevant.

I think it is important to sort between random echo-blogs, and actual reporting of events from sources with a track record. Bitcoin News Schweiz appears to fall in the latter category, and does not stand on its own, but is substantiated by credible newspaper articles.

If possible, please clarify which references are seen as unsubstantiated bitcoin blogs, and I will clarify and find stronger sources, but as I see it currently, the article is very strongly referenced by a great host of reputable sources.

Thank you for your feedback, and taking the time for submitting it.


Androphilijaslobodna (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Androphilijaslobodna (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Androphilijaslobodna (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LouišP

Hi David. You deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LouišP, but I think you meant to delete louišP? Thanks! Citobun (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OH GOOD LORD. Time to lay off the delete button for a while. *blush* - David Gerard (talk) 15:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah maybe that is the case huh?198.58.163.195 (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Australiancharts.com

Hi David, I see you added a note to avoid the above website, but actually we can't – all the Hung Medien websites use officially licensed chart information from the respective countries, and moreover, the {{Single chart}} and {{Album chart}} template link directly to them, so they are used on virtually every single and album article on Wikipedia. I agree that the Australian website is no use for records before 1988 when there was no ARIA chart, but the templates don't work for this era anyway: the only option for citing Australian charts before 1988 is a manual entry citing David Kent's book. Richard3120 (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble is, they're actively misleading in such cases - they're known bad. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rain (Dragon song), where a user thought a No. 2 that spent half a year on the national chart was deletable because it wasn't listed there. Discussion started: Wikipedia_talk:Record_charts#the_problem_with_australian-charts.com - David Gerard (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hemendra Aran

Thanks David for taking time to review the page and providing inputs. Will add / modify based on your inputs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nairji (talk • contribs) 07:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Tinucci

Thank you for taking the time to review this article. I will start adding more citations based on the input provided. Cada mori (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's already way better than the deleted version. Make sure it all firmly passes WP:RS, he's still a minor so people will be tetchy and hard-arsed about the sourcing per WP:BLP ... - David Gerard (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brisco baronets

Fair play on reverting an unsourced claim (somewhat ironically, perhaps, back to a previous unsourced claim), but in doing so, you reverted my edit which removed the EL from the text. It was, incidentally only a link, not a citation. Cheers, Muffled Pocketed 09:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

whoops, sorry! The large claim just made me go "wat" - David Gerard (talk) 12:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@David Gerard: No worries! This note on my TP is also relevant. Cheers! Muffled Pocketed 12:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zoho Edit

Thanks for updating me about the issue behind the page. (WikiGopi (talk) 10:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)) Please help me on this, I've requested deletion review for the following page Symantec Endpoint Protection since it violate wikipedia guidelines. Yesterday i've requested deletion for the page McAfee Endpoint Protection & it is removed now, but this article do have some debt history, would you please guide me to proceed with this deletion request, if am right.[reply]

Sensory Processing Disorders

Hi! Saw your edit at the Sensory Processing Disorder page and wanted to ask about the spam criteria you used. I didn't write that part but wasn't sure on how to edit it. How did you decided it was spam so I can apply that criteria too? ThanksChibs007 (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit? I was reverting this edit by a promo-only account, who was adding non-RSes to various articles to promote them. In any case, it certainly isn't a link that would pass WP:RS, let alone WP:MEDRS - David Gerard (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Oooooooohhh... On the Video Tip

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Oooooooohhh... On the Video Tip. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Whpq (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

The exact same people are doing exactly the same as they did in regard to sources on several of the Cryto currency articles [24] No regard seems to have been given to the very strong dismissal of those sources back at the Fringe theory board. Plus they seem to want to personalize the whole thing by identifying me specifically as someone to make a case for something and highlighting my involvement which I do not like. Earl King (talk) 02:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to cryptocurrency! Here's your accordion - David Gerard (talk) 09:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. Yeah, I guess that is the way it is. Thanks Earl King (talk) 04:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Suisse AG references (Missing response)

Hi David

You flagged the Bitcoin Suisse [link] article earlier, and I wrote a (lengthy) response to your critique (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard#Bitcoin_Suisse_AG_references). I think this may have been overlooked between my edits to the response.

I would very much appreciate if you could take the time to look over my response and perhaps point out why and if you still consider the article problematic.

Best regards Androphilijaslobodna (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


On Crptocurrency/Blockchain book

Hello David. Just passing by.. Read you are working on a book. I am also doing few research and working on projects like Fintech industry and application of Blockchain. If I can be help or contribute. Would love to do it. I can give you more development in Asian regions to be specific. :) Light2021 (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Roberts

Is that a 3RR I see on that page? Or close to .... Ratel (talk) 11:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that Orthogonal1 is sincere in his BLP plea, and 3RR doesn't apply in a serious BLP issue. Now, I don't think it's a serious BLP issue at all, but we should probably get more eyes on it before anything else. Thus, WP:BLPN would be next port of call rather than WP:AN3. I'm at work right now, but if you have time ... - David Gerard (talk) 11:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Running a drott on my land, so no time. I like the use of the word "bowdlerise", had to look it up, perfect. Ratel (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Riskin

Hi David. Thanks for taking time to review this article. I'd like to ask you to reconsider deletion. While the article isn't perfect and I only wrote relatively small portions of it, it references an important figure in value-based healthcare, a field focused on healthcare quality. The individual has pushed the industry through Congressional testimony, heavily cited academic publications, and building influential companies in the space. Facts are referenced to neutral sources. Increased focus on healthcare quality is needed. I'd genuinely welcome feedback to adjust the article to make it better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NimbleToad (talk • contribs) 19:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it to Draft:Dan Riskin so you can work on it before it goes prime time again. I suggest getting an acerbic eye from WP:AFC to comment before you take it back to mainspace, so that it doesn't promptly get renominated for deletion - David Gerard (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Onnit

"Hi David, I'm the creator of the entry for Onnit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Onnit) and am seeking clarity to make my stay on wikipedia a more pleasant contribution. The page was marked for deletion after being labeled as lacking sources or not a notable company. However, my original post was revised numerous times by Zefr (who has admitted to having negative feelings toward the company for whatever reason) despite having articles from VICE, Entrepreneur, Rolling Stone, and Inc magazine (ranked an Inc 500 fastest-growing company)to name a few I can recall. If the coverage in major publications like these is not considered reliable, notable or primary source, then what is? I feel I've seen mixed examples of what that means and it's not an objective process in some cases, like my created page, which feels disappointing. As a community made to foster connections, the page felt dominated by few people looking to discredit my work (which was not easy work to collect). How do I avoid this, for future sake? Or even better, may you walk me through an accepted creation of the entry? Thanks!"Banty Banty 123 (talk) 09:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I presently don't have time to mentor an article creation - my Wikipedia activity has dropped right off as I'm writing a book - but I suggest you first read WP:RS, reading with a view to understanding why it says the things it does (rather than with an eye to looking for loopholes) - start with the assumption that everything about the RS guidelines and the deletion discussions, including that one, are the way they are for excellent reasons. When you think you understand them well enough and someone can make an article that would survive, run it past WP:AFC for an acerbic editorial eye - David Gerard (talk) 09:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted page: Clive Jacobs

Hi David I see you have deleted the "Clive Jacobs" page I had created. I understand and acknowledge that this was for notability reasons and that this issue had been flagged up two years ago. Having now identified fresh third-party sources to address the notability weakness, I would welcome the opportunity to update this page. I'd welcome your feedback and advice. Best wishes Mikejwalsh Mikejwalsh (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restored to Draft:Clive Jacobs. Cheers :-) - David Gerard (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, the page 'Clive Jacobs' now updated with enhanced notability content and third-party links. Please advise if further changes required? Thanks Mikejwalsh (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, I'd welcome your feedback on the revision to the "Clive Jacobs" page. I hope you feel it can be released from its Draft status. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikejwalsh (talk • contribs) 17:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi David Gerard.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, David Gerard. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, David Gerard. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google.c listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Google.c. Since you had some involvement with the Google.c redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Three years ago ...
"scrupulous fairness"
... you were recipient
no. 673 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PowerDNS is notable

Since Help:Maintenance_template_removal#When_to_remove says I need to inform a user when they put a template on a page in error: PowerDNS is notable. Wikimedia has used it as their DNS server, and there is an entire chapter devoted to it in this book published back in 2008: Mens, Jan-Piet (2008). Alternative DNS Servers: Choice and Deployment, and Optional SQL/LDAP Back-Ends (Paperback). UIT Cambridge Ltd. ISBN 0-9544529-9-2.

In addition, it’s one of the only four DNS servers I know of that are 1) Open-source 2) Currently maintained 3) With both authoritative and recursive DNS support. Samboy (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Page: Bey Logan filmography

Hi David, on 19th August you deleted this page: 

deleted page Bey Logan filmography (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page (TW))

Bey Logan is a well known commentator on Asian cinema and the list that was on this page was most useful, and referenced a couple of places around the internet. It is a shame to lose such information (which is not updated anywhere else on the internet) so easily. I was about to update it. Can the page be reinstated? If it relies on another page.. ..i presume you mean just a page about Bey Logan, can it not be renamed to his name and then i can edit it from there (although i'll need to learn a few things first)? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki strider (talk • contribs) 11:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LinuxInsider

Hi, have posted Wikipedia:Help_desk#LinuxInsider. Your comments would be appreciated.--Aspro (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted Page: Nintex

Is there any way to restore the Nintex article from deletion? It was tagged for PROD concerns and "no evidence of notability." (perhaps due to a lack of varied sources?). Nintex is well-regarded and recognized in the SharePoint world, with Microsoft as a major partner. Below is a list of news sources that have referenced Nintex:

Awards:

Recognition of Nintex from a number of well-known industry sources, including Microsoft, Redmond ChannelPartner, Seattle Business magazine and DocuSign. Find listings here - https://www.nintex.com/company/awards-and-recognition

Let me know if these references suffice or what specifically I can do to ensure the article meets Wikipedia requirements, whether that's including more of these sources or something else. Thanks in advance for you time and consideration. User: tammybatey

Tammybatey

My automake edition you undid

This is about

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Automake&oldid=prev&diff=668633583&markasread=55781860

(hopefully copying the address of the page where I saw the diff of my edition, your action and comment will work)

I agree with you that there is a huge number of applications that use automake. I still think that some examples are interesting for whom is reading the article to know about it, possibly considering using it or not. I think it improves the article quality both to people that understand the more technical aspects of it, and also people of other areas that just heard about it and want to know a bit more about this tool.

- - - - Rapidim (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fwd: Intermediary IP Injunctions in the EU and UK

Given the interest you expressed on wikimedia-l, you may want to read a reasoned summary: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2891042 Nemo 10:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]