This is an archive of past discussions with User:Seraphimblade. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Seraphimblade, you might remember a case last year about User:Ohconfucius, who had been indefinitely topic banned from Falun Gong pages. He appealed to lift the ban in April 2014, was granted a one-year parole period, but then was brought back to the arbitration committee in June. At that time, you called attention to an anti-Falun Gong polemic in his userspace, which included attacks on several Wikipedia editors.[1] You wrote "If Ohconfucius' pattern of commenting on editors rather than edits continues or speculating on their motives, I'll be in favor of reinstating the topic ban. In that vein, Ohconfucius, I will be requesting reinstatement of the topic ban if you do not get rid of all of your userspace material on Falun Gong and leave it gone." I'd also want to notify @Floquenbeam: they raised similar concerns several months before you did.[2]
Ohconfucius deleted his userspace essay per your request. But shortly after the case closed, he simply posted a permalinked, older version of the essay to his userpage.[3] This week he restored it in its entirety[4], directly contravening your instructions.
I've filed an Arbitration Enforcement request which mentions you. I thought you might like to know, should you choose to weigh in. Best regards. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
March drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 38 people who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.
April blitz: The one-week April blitz, again targeting our long requests list, will run from April 19–25. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the requests page. Sign up here!
May drive: The month-long May backlog-reduction drive, with extra credit for articles tagged in December 2013, January and February 2014 and all request articles, begins soon. Sign up now!
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
I replied with a new section in this talk page as requested where I disagreed with your grounds for undoing my edit. You have subsequently archived my reply without even responding to it.
Hello! I am a fairly new editor here and have been having some problems on an article with other editors. I am looking for some help/advice from an experienced editor. I found your name when reading an article about receiving help from an experienced editor. If you're willing to help, we could discuss this over on my talk page, or here? Which is best? I'm pretty green! Thanks! Jack Bee Nimble (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Jack Bee Nimble
Hello, Seraphimblade. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
May drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 38 people who signed up, 29 copyedited at least one article, and we got within 50 articles of our all-time low in the backlog. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.
Coordinator elections:
Nominations are open through June 15 for GOCE coordinators, with voting from June 16–30. Self-nominations are welcome and encouraged.
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
The Wikipedia Library is expanding, and we need your help! With only a couple of hours per week, you can make a big difference in helping editors get access to reliable sources and other resources. Sign up for one of the following roles:
Account coordinators help distribute research accounts to editors.
Partner coordinators seek donations from new partners.
Outreach coordinators reach out to the community through blog posts, social media, and newsletters or notifications.
Technical coordinators advise on building tools to support the library's work.
If you find a moment, I'm looking for guidance. At the GMO article, I am finding that making the simplest, guideline-based change is not possible. It is discussed here. The reasoning for reverting my edit makes no sense to me, and I trust that there is a way within the system to ensure guidelines are ultimately what governs articles and talk pages. I just don't know what avenues are available to me and am at an impasse. Thanks kindly in advance, petrarchan47คุก03:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Technically, I suppose it is "on topic", but the request has already been made and noted in several places. We've seen it, there's really no need to have it posted all over the place. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Undeleting Article to Continue Working
I would like to be able to edit the page Gregorii as I think that it provides value to wikipedia. I was not finished with the article and have reputable references and citations to add. Also, there is historical content and descriptive info pertaining to an evolution of artistic stlye. It is not propaganda or promotion, but a page about an artist who is creating a new artistic process involving light that is changing the way digital art is viewed. I would really love the opportunity to update the article with the sources and with any other feedback you might provide. Thanks for the consideration.
The issue that led to deletion is stuff like the following, though this is by no means an exhaustive list:
"...a unique, mood-provoking method..."
"...but something seemed to be missing. Gregorii wanted to incorporate a full emotional experience into the pieces..."
"...designed to completely immerse the viewer in the overall emotional experience felt by the artist..."
"...the grandest structural shape of our environment..."
"Oil lamps gave a lively look to the art..."
That is all spam and puff. The article was full of breathless exhortations like that, and we will never allow an article such as that, written like a glossy brochure. Also, the reference after the initial naming is "Trombo", not "Gregorii"; per our manual of style, we do not use the first name except to initially name the person. If you can show me some reliable sources that cover this person in depth, I'll try to help you with writing an appropriate article. If those do not exist, I'm afraid we won't be able to have such an article at all. But regardless, any article must be strictly neutral and based strictly upon content from those reliable sources, and not in any way serve as a promotional piece. For someone who does art, I imagine a neutral piece would seem rather dry and lifeless, but I'm afraid that's still a non-negotiable requirement. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. I have an updated version I'd like to resubmit. How should I do that?
--Tangerinecircus
@Tangerinecircus: If you'd like to post it in a userspace draft, I'd be happy to take a look. Also, the lack of references was a significant issue, so if you'd like to note here what reference material is available for the article, I can give my thoughts on that as well. SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I've included reference and taken out the "fluff." If you could please review the revised edit here. I really appreciate your help and feedback.
Tangerinecircus The newer article is somewhat better, but stuff like "...tone for tone, pixel for pixel..." is still awfully fluffy, and is also totally unreferenced. It looks like a good portion of this article is written from personal knowledge instead. (One example: "Viewers of Gregorii’s art have commented..." Who? Where did they say it? How can we verify that?) The referencing is very light, but at least it includes a few unaffiliated sources. The bulk of the article looks to be from self-published material, so that will probably also need some cutting. Also, I do notice that this subject seems to have been your sole interest since joining Wikipedia. Please do consider if you might need to make the disclosures listed under the "Paid contributions without disclosure" heading located in the Terms of Use. SeraphimbladeTalk to me23:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. I'll go through it again and see if I can add more references as well. I'm learning there is a big difference between journalistic writing and writing for wikis. Yes, this is my first article, but I wanted to make sure I could get something that works before attempting any more. :)
OK. I updated again with more explanation and references and stripped out a bunch of the other stuff here. Thanks!
Editor Assistance Request
Dear Seraphimblade, I was trying to fix the health section of the Ramadan article. There are extremely dubious medical claims on that section titled as Benefits and their sources are not reliable for scientific topics. I first removed the content (and explained why I removed them) which I thought was not supported by RS's and looked like Fringe ideas. It was reverted and I was asked to seek consensus. I tried to do that, and further searched for scientific studies that may be useful for that section, and find out that claims in our article had no basis in any respected scientific study. You can see the discussion(or rather a monologue) here Some people in that talk page are quick to revert but really reluctant to address the issues. Do you think I should back up a bit or am I right to insist that those claims should be removed? I don't think we would accept a medical article to have these kind of claims with these sources, why should we allow them in other pages? Thanks in advance for help. Darwinian Ape talk16:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: Hello, sorry to bother you but I would like to respectfully ask you to reconsider your decision regarding Soham321. I have to ask you, are you aware of the situation over on the British Raj and Caste System of India articles? The guy has the patience of a saint dealing with what can only be termed as two or three dogmatic, ideologically-led editors. I always assume AGF but the reaction I received when first trying to improve the article was astonishing. Essentially three editors seem to believe they 'own' the articles and proceed to use any and all means to prevent the pages from being the independent, neutral and balanced articles they should be, articles that should be open to review yet are not due to their dated, ideologically-orientated stance. I have never come across such viciousness on Wikipedia and would personally warn them all to back off deleting other editors good faith edits, so I ask you to review what you know about the issue and take a second look, best wishes. Twobellst@lk10:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Understood, apologies, I wanted to ensure that editors clearly understood what has been going on over at these articles. Would you like me to delete this section? regards. Twobellst@lk14:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted Community Foundation of Greater New Britain
Hello,
you deleted this page and stated it was unambiguous advertising. I'm very much confused as to what advertising you were speaking about. I followed other foundation Wikipedia pages and stated information regarding our programs. Please let me know how I'm advertising. Please notify me when you respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JWilliamsonCFGNB (talk • contribs) 15:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
@JWilliamsonCFGNB: The issue here is that the page is just a glossy brochure. It restates the organization's "vision" and "mission" statements wholesale, generally a big red flag. The rest of the article goes on to describe how very nice the organization is. Now, of course, it might be very nice, but putting that into an article is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Rather, we have articles that are primarily sourced from reliable sources independent of a subject that have written extensively about it. (The article also could have been deleted under category A7, as it does not assert notability.) If reliable third party references have written a good deal about this organization, it is possible we could have an article on this organization sourced primarily to those, not just regurgitating the organization's own material. If not, it would not be a suitable subject at all. If you know where such sources might be found, please let me know and I'll see how they would work. SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I will remove this, however I didn't think posting our mission or values statements were bragging. Otherwise, you object to our programs, however if it is fact that we run these programs, describe what we do and who it benefits, is this still bragging? I'm also going to repost our introduction, as it seems to be acceptable based on your response and my evaluation of it. Let me know your thoughts and I will make changes accordingly.
17:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)17:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)17:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)17:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Again, I'll reiterate that all Wikipedia articles must be backed and primarily written from reliable third party sources unaffiliated with the subject. If such source material exists, I'll help you to write the article. If not, then we cannot have an article on this subject regardless of its content or tone. Do you know of any such material and where it might be found? SeraphimbladeTalk to me17:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
July drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 24 people who signed up, 17 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.
August blitz: The one-week April blitz, targeting biographical articles that have been tagged for copy editing for over a year, will run from August 16–22. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the article list on the blitz page. Sign up here!
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, KieranTribe, Miniapolis, and Pax85.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
Ponraj Vellaichamy is India's eminent policy maker and ex-president's technological advisor, and co-author of the book India 2020 Sequel. I saw you deleted that "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". The page is featured in Tamil wikipedia with enough references. Are you not happy with the references quoted for English Wikipedia? செலின் ஜார்ஜ் (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with the references. The whole article was a CV and puff piece, hence the deletion for advertising. I'll quote you a paragraph below to indicate some of the issues, and I hope you can see how this is not at all appropriate.
In a manifesto for change, its author A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, writing with co-author V. Ponraj, offers a sequel. As focused then as now on his dream of a developed india by 2020, the eleventh president of india examines what we need to get right to accomplish that essential goal: harnessing the stupendous energy of our youth to contribute to growth, a united parliament that makes full use of its time for constructive debate and rises above petty party politics to achieve the larger national vision, and a plan of action that looks at development from the grassroots to giant strides in infrastructure and bridging the urban-rural disparity. It is time to leave behind the politics of antagonism and disruption behind, he suggests. As reward: a developed india as befits this beautiful land.
you deleted the entry Oliver_M._Gruber-Lavin_Ochoa today. I read that the reason was G12, a copyright violation using some text excerpts from http://gruber-lavin.autriche.or.at/en/vitae/cv/. Yes there is some text used, but there is no copyright violation because full use is granted by the website-owner. Let me know which proof you do accept.
Thanks for your aim to keep Wikipedia on high standard, but I can gurantee you, that in this special case there is no (c) violation, and all deatils are proofen. Pls tell me what you need.
@Lazarpedia: So far as donating copyrighted works in general, you can see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. But, and it is crucial for anyone considering donating work to understand this, permission for "use on Wikipedia" alone is not sufficient. Wikipedia is a free content work, so the work must be released so that anyone, anywhere, can modify and reuse the work for any purpose, including for-profit and commercial purposes, without requiring further permission or paying any royalty or other fee. The normal license for that is the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license.
In this case, however, that's not even necessary. Articles shouldn't be verbatim text that someone wrote or published about themself, and they certainly shouldn't be the CV style that the article was previously in. Rather, articles should be based primarily on reliable sources that were written independently of the article's subject, as that is crucial to neutrality. If that type of source material does exist, you could write an article using those references, paraphrasing (entirely, not close paraphrasing) rather than copying. A small number of short direct quotes are fine, provided they are clearly identified as quotations and properly attributed, but the majority of the article should be in your own words as a summary of the reliable source material available. If such third-party source material does not exist, or makes only trivial mentions (name drops, brief mentions, etc.), then having an article on this individual would not be appropriate. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
you have deleted a page i have spent so much time getting information and putting together without much explanation except for a "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". That article was written completely from a neutral point of view of a student and once i was notified by another admin on the speedy deletion, i actually made a few edits to it as well to make it more neutral. If you even remember that page, (perhaps not since it seems like you delete pages on a 2-seconds basis) will you tell me what is wrong so that I can write something for my school? I believe more people will want to find out about my school, its heritage and what is it about.
@Hungryheartz: If you know of anyone who can review an article in a couple of seconds, they're having a better day than I am. For this particular one, there's a ton of the following types of language in it: "...powerful program...", "...strategic partnership with industry professionals and leaders...", "...most relevant skills in the creative industry...', "...some have gone on to work for premier ad agencies...', "...prides itself in providing professional and industrial-oriented knowledge and skills...", "...enabled to excel...", and on and on and on with that type of marketese language. The result is that the entire article winds up reading like a glossy school brochure, or in short an advertisement. If you can write an appropriate article from reliable sources that are unaffiliated with the school and have written about it (NOT from your own personal knowledge or impressions as a student, material must be verifiably sourced), I have no objection to doing so, but you must tone way down the peacock terms and boosterism. SeraphimbladeTalk to me05:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade Apparently you have not read the edited version before deleting. Indeed some jargons were used before they were flagged but were substantially reduced after that. I have copied some of the description from the school's website and I do admit it sounds a little promotional before the edit. Apart from the description on the school, many sources have been verified with links like the newspaper article and TV programme etc. All the project have also been carried out with respectable partners like Nikon and instagram with evidence online. I admire your effort in keeping this site clean but please bear in mind the ultimate mandate of this site and that is to share information. An article that was being complied so painstakingly shouldn't be just deleted like that without much explanation i feel. Before you delete the next article perhaps you can try to point out what YOU think is not appropriate so that one's effort is not being thrown into the recycle bin with a click. I will recreate one again but I am not too sure if I can find all those information I have managed to again but my advice to you is that perhaps you can advise first before just deleting it. You are destroying the goodwill wiki has garnered over the years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hungryheartz (talk • contribs) 07:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@Hungryheartz: It is better. The new version isn't great, but it's better. First, please do ensure you haven't directly copied any text into the new article from other sources, and either remove it or attribute it as a direct quote if you have, as you stated you'd done that in the original article. I'm sure in your education you've learned about plagiarism, and we operate by similar rules. The same applies to very close paraphrasing. The article also needs to be based on reliable secondary sources. LinkedIn and other social networks, in addition to blogs, personal pages, and the like, would not qualify. It would normally be a publication noted for fact-checking and accuracy, and is independent from the organization in question (for that reason, press releases that are simply reprinted are also not considered particularly reliable). There are still some problems with peacock language as well, but it's not bad enough to qualify for speedy deletion under G11 again. SeraphimbladeTalk to me15:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: Thanks for the help this time round! I guess I have done what i feel obliged to already and will leave the rest to other students/school admin to carry on in future. Have a great weekend ahead! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hungryheartz (talk • contribs) 01:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Deletion Gordon Manche
I have to disagree with you for deleting the article Gordon Manche. Many points which you mentioned, on the above article here on this page (why you have deleted this other page), have been respected on the article in question in Gordon Manche case. You could have made a shorter article or requested wikipedians to reform it but not delete. Will you also delete all article I have contributed to? I did not see a reasonable opinion for deletion. I read about you on your personal article saying you are liberal, atheist, supoorter of many things...which is nice to me but can you prove it in this case? By no means I want you to impose your views on articles but unless there are good reasons for deletions we should disagree to do it. Wikipedia is turning into a place for Christian decision-makers, conservative unsupported opinionists, anti-reformist, censorship, and not at all a community of mutual understanding. I wish you get back to me and tell me what the real issues are and what can be done to maybe bring it back. It took me a lot of time to learn how to edit, work on it, understand nuetrality, and ethics for BLP. Continentaleurope (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)continentaleurope
@Continentaleurope: My personal views don't matter a bit. The discussion clearly indicated that the sourcing was insufficient, and that this raised serious BLP concerns that, given the dearth of sourcing, would be difficult or impossible to fix. Those are valid reasons to request a deletion. I close deletion discussions based on the community's discussion, not just to see my own preferred outcome. That's not to say that I even had a particular preference here, I really don't, but I closed the discussion as it stood. I also will not, of course, be deleting any other articles you've worked on, unless a deletion process also indicated that they should be. SeraphimbladeTalk to me03:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Please give me a chance to edit/improve this page before abruptly deleting the effort put in to it. Flag the areas of concern, and allow me to modify them to standards... Check-Six (talk) 05:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Thus far, you've written either a puff piece/glossy brochure or a single "controversy" section with no other content and no assertion of significance. Those types of articles are subject to summary deletion and accordingly were. What is your proposal for an appropriate and neutral one? If you can demonstrate you can write one, I'm willing to remove the page protection, but you don't just keep recreating a page after it's been deleted as inappropriate. SeraphimbladeTalk to me05:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
That wasn't intentional - I was in the middle of editing that when the deletion came. (not everyone is an expert on Wikipedia, ya know. But I am willing to continue learning). Please revert my prior work, and give me a few moments to tone down the language. A few pointers to areas of concern would be nice too, especially as I am adding references by the bushel. Deal? Thanks in advance, Check-Six (talk) 05:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
You deleted the Haulmont page:
17:13, 26 August 2015 Seraphimblade (talk | contribs) deleted page Haulmont (A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)).
Unfortunately "indication of importance" is not measurable to have a grade that tells exactly what is significant and I fully trust your experience in making such evaluations, but please give me a chance to prove that this article is worthy being published in Wiki.
My claim of significance or importance is justified by the following points:
-Haulmont is already a mature (7 years) IT company, which has been awarded 2 UK awards for its solutions.
-Haulmont is the chief IT provider for Addison Lee - the largest taxi company in UK. They already have a page on wiki with a reference to Haulmont. Thus adding an article on Haulmont will improve current article on Addison Lee. The fact that Haulmont software manages the fleet of 4k cabs in London (including intelligent car scheduling) seems rather significant.
-Our taxi product is used in more than 10 countries all over the world . The distributed soution gives a significant growth to the business where it was deployed (example).
-Haulmont is launching new Java Platform for Enterprise software development to the international market. We believe in its success, though probably posting a page on Wiki should be done when it will be really famous. But we are already getting requests from Java programmers all over the world. So actually this is the next article I was going to post [Sandbox for CUBA Platform]. At the moment this is a more functional Java framework than any existing (compared to Play_framework, OpenXava).
-CUBA Platform (on behalf of Haulmont) is the silver sponsor of upcoming JavaOne conf, JavaOne this year, the major java conference for Java developers.
In my opinion this points allow to claim the significance or importance (though not comparable to Oracle, Google and other monsters:) ).
Please advise how the Haulmont article can be improved so that it was not deleted.
@AndreyLednev: I see someone's addressed the conflict of interest concerns already. That's nothing against you personally, it's just really difficult to write neutrally about a subject you're very close to, such as a loved one, employer, etc. Certainly one would hope you're enthusiastic about what your company does, else it makes for a very miserable day at work. That being said, what we really need for any article are a substantial number of reliable third-party sources that cover the subject in reasonable depth. As to what that actually means. Reliability indicates that the publisher has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and is appropriate for use to support the particular claim it is referencing. Third-party indicates that the person or entity publishing the source is not affiliated, financially or otherwise, with the subject, does not have an interest in promoting (or denigrating) the subject beyond factual reporting, and is not simply uncritically republishing material the subject actually wrote (such as press releases) or otherwise allowing the subject undue influence over what is published. In reasonable depth does not mean that the reference must be exclusively about the subject, but must have more than just a passing mention or name-drop, it must actually provide details.
If references like that exist, the article would need to be based on those. If you can point me toward some you think would work, I'd be happy to take a look to see if they might. If they don't exist, I'm afraid we'd be unable to sustain an article on the company at this time. Of course, that could change in the future if more and better material does become available.
For clarity's sake, though, it's nothing to do with anyone's personal opinion of the company, or how great they or their products may or may not be. It's just a question of whether we have enough neutral and high-quality sources to write a neutral and high-quality article from them. SeraphimbladeTalk to me17:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Just FYI - I was in the process of researching the references and adding the following, when you closed it:
weak Delete per nom and RoySmith. Most of the refs are not RS. And of the RS, the coverage does not rise to the level of "substantial". A search on News returned a significant number of hits, but mostly due to the writer "Raquel Vélez Garcia". The very few which have to do with this engineer are already at use in the article, and are not significant coverage. Newspapers turned up nothing, Books nothing to show notability; Scholar returned some hits, but the best ones were for "Raquel Vélez Castro"; JSTOR - nothing.
Not that it matters now, but that was the first time I've ever had an edit conflict at an AfD which was an admin closing it. Take it easy. Onel5969TT me13:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, you just deleted TandemLaunch (Company). It is true that it is a company, but it is not selling any product, nor looking for clients. It is a Montreal Incubator, that helps transfer Technology from University to Tech Startups.
If you're going to delete this one, you might as well delete: Y Combinator, TechStars, Seedcamp, Startupbootcamp, Tech Wildcatters, SOSVentures, and Boomtown Boulder.
I know the page is not perfect (it is my first article), and I was working on it when you erased it. You didn't give me 30 minutes to work on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiknowledge222 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I hope you're still an active wikipedia user. 3 years ago, you deleted an article by a French singer called Petite Meller. Earlier this year she had a top 40 single in the UK with a track called Baby Love. I want to, therefore, create her a wiki page. However, the page has been locked by administrators. Are you able to unlock it? Technohead1980 (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
@Technohead1980: Yes, I still actively edit and would able to do so. The concern for which the article was originally deleted was a lack of available reference material. Could you please point me to the references you intend to use? SeraphimbladeTalk to me17:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Since the original AfD resulted in deletion specifically due to lack of references, I don't think that's enough to overcome that. There would need to be actual biographical source material, not just a directory entry. If you can find that please let me know. SeraphimbladeTalk to me01:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list
Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimaltalk18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Could you please advise why you deleted these two pages? These two pages have been on Wikipedia for a few years and were posted by others. I only edited each of them to correct some mailing information and erroneous information about a reference to parent organization.
Since I did not create them I don't have the text, photos, etc. needed to recreate them. I am advised that you can provide me with that and advise me what needs to be fixed to keep them posted on Wikipedia.
@Patalexander: There are two issues with both articles. The first, that led to their deletion, is that they read as promotional pieces, essentially like glossy brochures or an "about us" page. I'm sure they're both very nice organizations, but we don't allow promotion of anyone or anything, not even good causes. Wikipedia articles must remain strictly neutral. The root problem, though, is that the articles cite few or no reliable, independent sources. To be counted as reliable, the source must have a good reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, generally should not be self-published without editorial oversight, and should be reasonably competent to write about the subject. Independence means that the source is not affiliated with, compensated by, or otherwise incentivized to provide coverage of the subject. This also would exclude uncritical republication of self-published material such as press releases written by the organization, even if reprinted in a source that would otherwise be reliable. I note that one article cites a Wall Street Journal piece. That's the type of referencing we're looking for, but to maintain neutrality, we'd need more than one of those.
The lack of reliable reference material is the real issue here. Without that, articles tend to be filled in with personal knowledge from those close to the subject, as appears to have happened here. That doesn't result in a neutral article, and we can't allow personal knowledge that can't be verified through a reference. So the first question is, are there multiple reliable, independent sources we can use to write an article on either organization? If you can point me to some, I'd be happy to take a look and see if they're workable, and if so see what can be done about writing an article. If that reference material doesn't exist, I'm afraid we can't accept any article on the subject at all. SeraphimbladeTalk to me20:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Numerous sites that are specialty hospitals, prosthesis makers, etc. link to the http://child-amputee.net website as a reference for parents.
Both of these organizations have been searched out many times in the past by people needing information. Neither organization charge in anyway for their services. I would really appreciate your guidance in getting these articles written in a proper manner.
For the one-armed hunt article, then, I think there just might be enough there to work with. I also found an entry in an actual published book, which never hurts: [5]. I think there's enough reference material there to sustain an article, I'll see what I can do.
For the second article, though, I'm afraid no such luck. We can't use Youtube as a reliable reference, and the rest there are blogs, directory entries, and other such things that also aren't editorially controlled or fact-checked. I can't really find anything better, so I'm afraid it seems not to pass our notability requirements. For those looking for information on the organization, I do note that it has a Web page of its own and a Facebook group, so I'm sure those will serve provide such information. Our aim, though, is not to be a directory, but rather an encyclopedia, which is the reason we do insist on reliable reference material to back articles. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Recently I noticed you have removed {{db-spam}} from Draft:Virto Commerce, and this article's creator is repeated requesting for review, I have done the search on it's the notability and the significance of coverage of this topic, But I couldn't find anything related to this platform's notability since the company of this product didn't meet WP:CORP's minimum criteria, Kindly reconsider this request and delete the page from draft space in order to avoid drama from the creator of the page and reviewers. Thank you MONARCH♔21:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Functional Food Centre at Oxford Brookes University
Seraphimblade, I am surprised and disappointed at your decision on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Functional Food Centre at Oxford Brookes University. A week ago, I looked at the debate with a view to closing it, and was not impressed by the delete arguments. Many points were irrelevant, and they did not seem to have looked closely at the sources. So I put on my non-admin hat and argued that the sources were more than adequate to satisfy WP:ORG (or WP:GNG, for that matter). To prove it I completely rewrote the article with all but minor facts supported by reliable, independent sources. The article at the time of nomination and the article at the time of closing are completely different, so the delete votes are for a different article. You do not seem to have taken this into account. I am not asking for you to change your decision, but in future you should keep in mind that the facts can change. RockMagnetist(talk)23:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
@RockMagnetist: Sorry, but I'm quite thoroughly confused by that message. You argued in that discussion to keep the article, and it ultimately was kept. Were you perhaps thinking of a different article or discussion? SeraphimbladeTalk to me00:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Just that the judgement was "no consensus" instead of "keep". A minor thing, I know, but when you put a lot of effort into fixing an article it feels very different. RockMagnetist(talk)00:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, you deleted the Aligarh Muslim University Students’ Union page which was just started and yet to take its shape. But, now I have found more sources and articles on this topic, so request you to retrieve the page so that I can edit it.
Note- This Union is a statutory body of the university sanctioned under the Indian Parliament through an Act. Mahatma Gandhi is the first life member of the Union. It has evolved from Siddons Union Club. Here are few of the references.
@Arifjwadder: Sorry, but the previous article was almost all spam and puff. There's really nothing appropriate there to restore. A speedy deletion doesn't preclude trying again, but the resulting article must be neutral, and not contain things like "...concentrated on character building of students for all round personality development...", "...leadership qualities are the prime considerations...", "...produce good orators and wise leaders...", and that's just in the first couple paragraphs. The idea is not to say how great it is, but just to provide a neutral summation of what the reliable sources have to say. You've been producing a lot of content that's been deleted about this school, so that raises two questions. Firstly, if you are being financially or otherwise compensated to produce this material, or asked to do so in the course of your employment, you must disclose that fact. Secondly, before creating any more such articles, you need to familiarize yourself with the policies on what does and does not make an appropriate article. "Reference bombing" by just presenting a lot of sources isn't it. Those sources must be reliable, relevant, reasonably in-depth in their coverage of the article subject, and independent. And even when references are available, neutrality is still an absolute requirement. Before you create any more articles, you must fully understand and be able to follow those requirements. The occasional error is expected, but repeated creation of inappropriate articles is grounds for a block. SeraphimbladeTalk to me22:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.
An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.
The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.
Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign
If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.
Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation
My personal opinions of someone's musical talents have nothing to do with whether an article is appropriate. (If they did, the article on Britney Spears wouldn't be sticking around too long.) But articles require reliable sources and some assertion of significance. SeraphimbladeTalk to me17:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
you mean i have to get more information about him and it's good if i take his interview and lets know about him and then made article with full information
if i may add to the convo here, seraphim i think he wants you to google up the guy.I am from india too and since the plea giver is not too adept with his english.....i guess thats what he means.Magicsan (talk) 08:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
hello seraphim
ive been editing on wikipedia for about two years now(through multiple accounts). I use twinkle but find it not sufficient for anti vandalism fighting. If ypu could give me rollback or admin responsibilities i can add another feather to wikipedia's vandalism fighting hat :-)
Thanks for taking time to look at this request,
yours'
Magicsan (talk) 08:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Rollback may be requested here. Adminship requests go here, but you'd be wise to familiarize yourself with the process and practices, candidates for adminship are closely scrutinized during that process. SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
FYI, this user who you gave a final warning for posting the same spam article proceeded to post the same article again, so I went ahead and blocked them. –Grondemar05:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
@DanBeeMaster: Well, we'll start with the easy stuff. Don't use "Mr." or the like in an article. Upon first mention in the article, a person should be referred to by full name ("John Smith"), and thereafter, referred to by last name only ("Smith", not "Mr. Smith", "Dr. Smith", "Reverend Smith", etc.). Aside from that, the article cites no reliable sources, which is necessary to demonstrate notability. Such references would need to cover the book in reasonable depth. They might, for example, be in-depth professional reviews, an analysis of the book and its contents, and so on. For a lot of books, those types of sources don't exist. That means the book is not an appropriate article subject, Wikipedia is not a directory. And an article is not a glossy brochure or dust jacket. It's appropriate to briefly mention the officer, but not in a way that looks like a CV. That section would need to be made neutral rather than glowing, or better yet, cut down to a sentence or two and not placed in its own section. The article shouldn't promote anyone or anything, the author included. So before you do anything else, check if a significant amount of reliable reference material exists in regards to the book. If it doesn't, no use wasting more time, as an article isn't even possible. SeraphimbladeTalk to me10:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh, one more addendum I forgot to mention: Take out the editorials. "User-friendly yet thorough"? "In-depth"? "Behind the scenes"? "Meticulously researched"? According to whom? "Cited by leading press organizations"? Which ones? If it has been, cite those references, and stick to what they say, not what you know or think about it. SeraphimbladeTalk to me10:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: Hi, Thank you so much for your time and guidelines. how many sources (cite) should an article have? What else I am missing?
@DanBeeMaster: There isn't a "magic number" of references to demonstrate notability. If the references cover a subject in great depth and have a high reputation for reliability and neutrality, two (or in rare cases, even one) might suffice. If they're not as in-depth, we'd need more to get a complete picture. If the references are primary, unreliable, or trivial (just drop the name or are a brief blurb or directory entry rather than giving any information about the subject), no number of those is enough. SeraphimbladeTalk to me17:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi there
I want to discuss about deletion of my new page chrysaalis i math which is same like Kumon Math (its on wikipedia). I will review it again if it reads like advertisement, please undelete it. I am admin for wiki project education in India and this program in quite famous in India so i fell it will be great help for parents. Please review once again. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bishwa 777 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC) boomboom
Won't be undeleting it, sorry. You can try again, but you need to cut the puffery and marketese ("fun and lively", "revolutionary", etc.), and stay strictly to what is supported by reliable sources say. Make sure the article reflects only the references, not your personal knowledge or opinion. If significant independent references don't exist, I'm afraid the subject wouldn't be appropriate for an article at all. SeraphimbladeTalk to me13:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi
I have added 4-5 national news paper links and writeen in way they have published in the news paper. My writing style may have been wrong but the information deserve to be on wiki. I will review and change the content if you allow and this i math program is exactly like Kumon Math ( a japanese concept) which is already in wiki. I would appreciate for your kind gesture. boomboom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bishwa 777 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
@Bishwa 777: Nothing "deserves" to be on Wikipedia (not "wiki"). Either enough reference material exists and the article can be written, or it doesn't and can't. Regardless, however, the article must be in a neutral tone, not a promotional one. You can try again, but keep those requirements in mind. You can also try the article as a draft so that someone else can review it before it "goes live". If you're asking me to undelete it again, the answer is and will remain "no". SeraphimbladeTalk to me17:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
--Richards j065 (talk) 09:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)Hello, My page https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Contreras_Rosario have a warning - Posible autopromoción o contenido publicitario: el asunto o la redacción de este artículo o sección inducen a creer que debería ser borrado. Por favor, añade argumentos y referencias que permitan evaluar la relevancia del tema, revisa su redacción o edita el artículo, según corresponda. De no ser así, el artículo será borrado en 30 días a partir de la fecha original de este aviso. Por favor no retires el mismo sin consultar antes con el usuario que lo colocó, o bien, con un tercer usuario que goce de la confianza de la comunidad —preferiblemente un bibliotecario—. Para crear artículos con más garantías de éxito te recomendamos que utilices el asistente para la creación de artículos.
As per the warning i have edited the article but still i am getting the same warning.
Could you please let me know what i can do to remove the above warning and save my page from deletion.
That article is on the Spanish language Wikipedia. This one is the English Wikipedia, which is an entirely separate project with different policies. It looks like the article was flagged for being promotional; the template contains some further instructions to take on that project. You'll have to handle it there, we don't have any say over what other language projects do. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
No idea if they even have any such thing. They could do things entirely differently. Again, you need to handle this issue on that project please, there's nothing we can do for you here. SeraphimbladeTalk to me12:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Can you explain what you meant by ‘Quote meant in citation’? I didn't change the quotes at all; I just removed the unnecessary signature, replaced the period with a colon to make the regular text flow better into the back quotation, and moved the definition of that reference to the end of the block quotation and got rid of the first use of that reference; one use at the end of the block quotation should be enough. Esszet (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello how are you. I saw that you revert my edit, I liked to explain the point so as not to get into a edit war, a day ago an user add the Category: atheists. But most of sources show that Einstein Einstein used many labels to describe his religious views, including "agnostic", "religious nonbeliever" and a "pantheistic" believer in "Spinoza's God." But not an atheist.
According to Isaacson, Walter (2007), Einstein: His Life and Universe, New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, ISBN978-0-7432-6473-0: Einstein's called himself an agnostic, while disassociating himself from the label atheist.
According to Banesh Hoffman; Helen Dukas (1981). Albert Einstein: The Human Side. Princeton University Press. ISBN0691023689., p. 178: Einstein once wrote: "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but expressed it clearly".
Einstein had previously explored the belief that man could not understand the nature of God. In an interview published in 1930 in G. S. Viereck's book Glimpses of the Great, Einstein, in response to a question about whether or not he defined himself as a pantheist, explained: "Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist."
According to Calaprice, Alice (2000). The New Quotable Einstein. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, p. 216; Letter to M. Berkowitz 25 October 1950; Einstein Archive 59–215: In a 1950 letter to M. Berkowitz, Einstein stated that "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment".
The article it self noted that he called himself an agnostic, and disassociating himself from the label atheist. He inded was an agnostic but since he refuse to call him self an athiest, Why we will fit him under Category of atheists. Have a nice day.Jobas (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
The second citation is the crucial one. Einstein did not believe any gods existed, and so was an atheist. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, most atheists are agnostic. Einstein was one such, and the sources are very clear on that. SeraphimbladeTalk to me01:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
You may not take what suits you, accroding to the sources he refuse to call himself an atheist, and the sources are very clear on that, even if Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive as you say, still according to different source's Einstein refuse to call himself atheist and he called his own beilef as agnostic or pantheistic or believer in "Spinoza's God but not as atheist, so why we will fit him him under category of atheists when he refuse to label himself as that.--Jobas (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
September drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 25 editors who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.
October blitz: The one-week October blitz, targeting requests, has just concluded. Of the nine editors who signed up, seven copyedited at least one request; check your talk page for your barnstar!
The month-long November drive, focusing on our oldest backlog articles (June, July, and August 2014) and the October requests, is just around the corner. Hope to see you there!
I'd just like to point out that I was not admonished in [[6]]. The result was that my action was "suboptimal" (which most of the parties disagreed with, but hey) but it was not an admonishment. I would appreciate it if you considered that in your comments on the current case. Thank you, Black Kite (talk)23:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@Technohead1980: This was my last response to you. I never received a response in return to it. Since the concern for which the article was deleted by the community was a lack of substantive referencing, I'll need to actually see that significant, substantive referencing about this subject is now available (not just a chart entry) so that it's clear the concern leading to deletion is no longer a concern. If you've actually located that reference material, please do let me know what it is, but it will be necessary to find it first. Original response follows below.
Since the original AfD resulted in deletion specifically due to lack of references, I don't think that's enough to overcome that. There would need to be actual biographical source material, not just a directory entry. If you can find that please let me know. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
OK. I don't want to write a full article. I normally do a stub and then monitor the way it grows as other people add to it to make sure they're not copying and pasting junk from websites. It's a shame as it makes Wikipedia feel incomplete as she satisfies the criteria for inclusion and has had articles in The Guardian, Standard and BBC this year. Never mind! Technohead1980 (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully, if that referencing exists, someone will actually care to do the work of finding and citing it. References are a requirement for articles, not an optional nicety. If you're not ensuring to find sufficient reference material before starting articles, you ought not be starting them at all. SeraphimbladeTalk to me
Question about IBAN
Hi Seraphim. I have a question about Interaction Bans. I am interested in commenting in a FAC for an article which was nominated by a user with whom I have an interaction ban. Can this be done without breaking the IBAN, even if the comment is on the content?--MarshalN20Talk00:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
@MarshalN20: An interaction ban means to stay well away from the editor in question. If you have to ask, you probably shouldn't (though, better to ask than step over the line). FAC gets plenty of traffic, so in that case, I would leave that particular FAC to others. You'd be stepping very close to the line, if not over it, by getting involved yourself. SeraphimbladeTalk to me02:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I checked WP:IBAN prior to asking. It doesn't have a strict definition (none of the wording there indicates "to stay well away from the editor in question"). On the contrary, its wording leaves it very open-ended ("the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions"). Perhaps the wording should be improved (or the list of examples expanded)? Regardless, thank you for the response. Best wishes.--MarshalN20Talk03:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
When it comes to topic and interaction bans, I usually advocate staying farther away than the "black letter" policy explicitly requires. I've seen too many people get in trouble trying to skate right along the line. Too easy to put a toe over, and then it ends badly for everyone. SeraphimbladeTalk to me15:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello. You deleted CopyProof paper, a page I had just created. Apparently, you felt that it was an advert and repeated content in Security paper. I beg to differ. I am researching (photo)copy protection and identifying technologies and suppliers of photocopy resistant paper. Some of these suppliers DO have their own Wikipedia pages, while some (like CopyProof) do not. I also was frustrated because in several Wikipedia pages, photocopy protection has become entangled with articles on digital rights management (DRM). While both deal with copy protection, they are otherwise entirely unrelated, certainly in a technical perspective. Since CopyProof paper is based on various patents, I feel it is worthy of a Wiki page, certainly since some of its competitors already do.I personally feel that the security paper page needs work. If some security paper suppliers have pages, then it would seem rational that others do too ... or subsume all under Security paper. Enquire (talk) 08:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
@Enquire: Upon deletion, the "article" consisted of essentially a single sentence stating that CopyProof paper cannot be copied, and a link to the website. I wouldn't have any objection to redirecting the article to security paper, but that's duplicative of the content there (A10) and essentially just a sales link (G11). If you think other pages are erroneous or poorly written, please feel free to help fix those, but that wouldn't indicate a need for articles on non-notable subjects.
We actually don't have an article on one thing because a similar one exists. Rather, we have an article on something if and only if sufficient reliable secondary sources with no interest in the subject have covered the particular subject (CopyProof paper, not security paper in general) to write a reliable, verifiable, neutral article. Patents, similarly, have nothing at all to do with it. If some types of security paper have sufficient sources to write articles about them and some do not, some will have articles and some will not. Such is true for most types of businesses or products, really. Some in an area pass the notability standards and have articles, many do not pass and correspondingly have no article. SeraphimbladeTalk to me14:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh, as an additional note: Speedy deletion only relates to the article in its current form. If you actually can find good sources and write an article on the subject, there's nothing wrong with you taking another shot at it. SeraphimbladeTalk to me14:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
This article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses is Edited by Wiki writer BlackCab who is an ex Jehovah's Witness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User%3ABlackCab It also has many references by James Penton also an ex Jehovah's Witness. Noted Historian Detlef Garbe in his book 'Between Resistance and Martyrdom' said of James Penton "His work has not been taken into consideration... His statements, source selection, and interpretation reflect a deep-seated aversion against this religious association, of which he had once been a member." Thus it's accuracy is called into question." This seems the case with all Wiki articles on Jehovah's Witnesses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_in_Nazi_Germany
They reflect a deep seated aversion against this religious association of which Blackcab and Penton had once been a member. Similarly, you cannot make any edits in this article without BlackCab changing or stopping them. This article like all articles on Jehovah's Witnesses should have been written by a writer who has had absolutely no affiliation past or present with Jehovah's witnesses and thus no bias. It calls into question the accuracy of all other information found in Wiki. Please live up the honesty of Wiki and have someone completely neutral and unbias rewrite all of these articles on Jehovah's Witnesses.
@Bruce the Builder: If you believe that the article has issues with neutrality, you are welcome to discuss those concerns on the article talk page. You are not permitted to write an editorial on the article page itself. Please note that you will be expected to discuss content, not the identity of any contributor. You will need to specify what in specific you believe is not neutral, why, what change you would propose to make, and what reliable sources would back such a change. SeraphimbladeTalk to me02:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
My page Chef Tony Khan was deleted as you say it had advertising in it. I request you to let me try again to remove any unwanted advertorial elements. It clearly is not my intention. I just want there to be a record of Chef Tony Khan's actual achievements and the things he has done as a culinary chef to help others as well. I will provide references to each and every thing newspapers, books and verified links.I have numerous citations i can provide. he has appeared in many cooking shows on national tv in bangladesh and i will cite them properly. please help and as i am new, i had not used the user:new page option to mold the article. I wasnt finished citing or even writing it. Please tell me what i should do now. I can also use any advice you have. Please respond. Islammanwarul (talk) 07:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
@Islammanwarul: If you can use reputable sources that aren't affiliated with the subject, that would be very helpful. Also, the article was written in an advertising/CV style, and essentially read like a CV. It also insisted on using "Chef" multiple places throughout, including in the title. We don't use stuff like that. The page would be named "Tony Khan" and that would be used on first reference to him, future references would just be "Khan". Speedy deletion isn't necessarily a bar to recreation and you may take another go at it, but please do make sure to stick to reputable source material and not just write it as a CV/"list of accomplishments". You might consider a userspace draft or using draft space so that you can get some feedback prior to taking the page "live". SeraphimbladeTalk to me20:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Rockstar Marketing Wikipage deleted
Hello Seraphimblade,
Our page was deleted due to it being advertorial. This was not my in intent at all and is my fault. I had never written anything for Wikipedia and thought I was writing it neutral and not making it sound like an ad, I must of not of and for this I am truly sorry. Can I re-write the article and resubmit it. I wasn't finished, I had about 10 more references that I was putting up. If allowed to re-write it and resubmit, I absolutely want to adhere to all Wikipedia guidelines. I am a coder like you, guess I should be a better writer, haha, Thank you for the consideration Seraphimblade.
@Scottdaddy2222: I took a look at the deleted article. The "references" cited seem to just be reprinted press releases. To support an article on a subject, that subject needs to have substantial reliable source material, published in reputable sources, that was not written by someone affiliated with or having an interest in promoting the subject. If such reference material doesn't exist, I'm afraid we couldn't accept an article at all.
I am not certain how you thought that "...offices located in Beautiful Destin, Florida,..." (we don't use fluff like "beautiful", you'd just state the location), "...Nation’s leading Advanced Social Media and Search Engine Optimization strategy companies." (we'd need very strong and reliable referencing backing that something is a "leading" anything before saying something like that, and for some reason every Word in the Sentence is Capitalized), and "A few of the people we have worked with..." (we generally discourage people or organizations from writing about themselves, as it's almost impossible to maintain neutrality when doing so, but even aside that we'd not use "we" in an article). You're welcome to try again, but you really need to stay away from that kind of marketing language and stick to only what can be supported by material in neutral, disinterested sources. SeraphimbladeTalk to me20:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Seraphim, I'm fairly sure that this is the user Kazmandu2, who I blocked for several reasons, one of which was that they were quite obviously an undisclosed paid editor, most likely for Rockstar Marketing themselves. Given that this is either them trying to get around the block or someone who is aware of the other user's block and is trying to get around it by having another person edit, I'd strongly recommend against restoring anything for them. I'm fairly sure that it's Kazmandu2, though, given that they write in a similar format as that editor. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)04:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I've opened up an SPI. A short look for the name "Scott" with Rockstar Marketing brings up the name of its owner. Scott made no edits to the Rockstar draft, only Kazmandu2 did. This makes it extremely likely that they're the same person trying to evade a block or they're someone who works in the same office. They seem to be aware of the block and are still trying to evade the block and the disclosure requirements. That they went through you and didn't ask me, the nominating and blocking admin, to restore it shows that they're trying to evade detection. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)04:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
It looks like there are more accounts. (sighs) Also, I made a bit of a tweak above. I was the nominating and blocking admin, not the deleting one. Still, this looks to be a deliberate attempt to evade detection and avoid having to disclose their COI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)08:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Again, thanks for letting me know. Some of these spammers are godawfully persistent, aren't they? I find myself having to review my deletion logs to make sure the stuff hasn't cropped back up, and inevitably at least a few things are right back in the same advertorial format. SeraphimbladeTalk to me11:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I've just noticed you deleted Template:Proactiv sidebar without discussion as advertising. I'd appreciate it if you would restore that and nominate it for deletion instead. It's a list of ingredients the users of this product, mostly women, will appreciate. Not advertising at all; quite the reverse. SarahSV(talk)18:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
@Ae9000ae: I'm sorry you felt it was unfair, but do stand by the decision. The article was both promotional in tone ("It's (sic) main objective is to provide fun to the game community"), and did not provide any assertion of notability. To be able to accept an article on any subject, that subject must have been reasonably extensively covered by third-party reliable sources which are not published by or interested in promoting the subject. ("Indiedb" would not be a reliable source.) Does such source material exist? If it does, it's entirely possible that an appropriate article could be written about this subject. If not, I'm afraid one won't be possible at all. Regardless, however, any article would need to be neutral, not promotional, in tone and content. The requirement for multiple reliable and disinterested sources is to help in maintaining that neutrality. SeraphimbladeTalk to me22:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Could've you just put a deletion tag, then the author could fix it. Ae9000ae (talk)
I asked you a simple question, whether or not references of the necessary type exist. If not, then this is not a suitable topic for an article, period. If they do, it's possible one could be written. That was already the answer, and will remain the answer no matter how many ways you reframe the question. SeraphimbladeTalk to me22:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
DeZyre Wiki Page has been deleted for being advertorial/promotional. This was not the intent at all and we just wanted to create the wiki page so that we could provide fountain of knowledge to people searching for a quick info about DeZyre. I thought I was writing it neutral and keeping it fact-based without violating any of the guidelines by making it valuable and notable to wiki readers. I want to adhere to all the Wikipedia guidelines and would be grateful if you could let me know what section of my content violates any of the guidelines. I would be make the necessary changes to the content so that it is in-align with the Wikipedia guidelines.
Appreciate any help or advice from you in taking the DeZyre Wiki page live.
First, Wikipedia is not "Wiki". That aside, I think there would be significant doubt about whether an article on this subject would be feasible at this time. Reference material in the article was very thin, and I don't see anything that looks any better. For an article to be possible on a given subject, we must have available multiple reliable sources which are not interested in or affiliated with the article subject available as references, and those sources must cover the subject to a reasonable depth. There's one blurb, and one anonymous source. That's not near enough. Do you know of any additional references that might exist? If so, I'd be happy to take a look at them. If the ones in the article are indeed the best that exist, I'm afraid we won't be able to accept any article on that subject. The promotional tone is another matter, some examples but far from the only ones: "...best-in class industry experts...", "...furbish the needs of working IT professionals...", "masterminds", "single-handedly built", and a whole bunch of glossy-brochure material like that. Even if an article were possible, it would need to be in a neutral tone, not contain a bunch of fluff like that. SeraphimbladeTalk to me20:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
78.26's RFA Appreciation award
The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26(spin me / revolutions)01:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Notability
Ye of the brutal blade: Since every lord on high editor here in Wikiworld has a different definition of "notable" and uses his/her own definition to make final determinations about whether articles live or die I'm curious what level of notability passes your bar? You've noted to other poor souls pleading with you that one citation from an outside source is not enough and awards, etc from outside organizations are of no consequence to you. So for a company with hundreds of clients and at least some recordable search traffic seeking information, how many independent citations would you need? Two? Five? Just curious since the guidelines are broad enough to sail the red giant through. Thanks much.Ysplanti420 (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Citing anything would certainly help. There is indeed not a single "magic number". Rather, we're looking for a sufficient quantity and depth of reference material to write a full article. Regardless, however, even if an article were appropriate, it could not be written as a marketing brochure. SeraphimbladeTalk to me03:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Direct Drive
Hello Seraphimblade
This is Thisiswhatwefind. Have been searching for ages to see how I contact you. This seems to be it? I was confused as to your reason for the exclusion of the article but have since found that placed at the end was a link to a site which not only had some background on the band but also has a compilation of music for sale. This was added without my knowledge by another person whom I gave access of Thisiswhatwefind to in order to add anything that I did not know. And their addition must have been added just after i sent the article for inclusion on Wikipedia. I know that Wikipedia is an information site and not a 'shop window' and apologise for what happened. I fully appreciate why you declined the page.
Was there anything else apart from that inclusion that you had a problem with? I was trying to do a plain and simple history of the band Direct Drive and being new to and unfamiliar with how one adds content was not and still am not fully conversant with how one adds references and was proposing to add them later. For your information here are some of the links http://www.whatmusic.com/info/productinfo.php?menulevel=home&productid=153&returnurl=http://www.whatmusic.com/home/index.phphttp://www.discogs.com/artist/87235-Direct-Drive-3https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Hardcastlehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Rogershttp://www.soulchoonzradio.com/featured_artists.php?FID=47
Thanks for your time and look forward to hearing from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisiswhatwefind (talk • contribs) 22:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
@Thisiswhatwefind: You're certainly correct that the sales link was inappropriate, but that wasn't really all. The entire piece was full of fluffy, promotional language ("Promising though they were...", "...the effervescent Paul Hardcastle and the Philip Bailey tones of...", "...beautiful and expressive voice...", as a few examples but hardly the only ones). Also, please do note that, while not required while drafting in userspace, in order for the subject to be an acceptable one for an article, it would need to be covered reasonably extensively in reliable sources not having an interest in promoting the band. If that type of referencing doesn't exist, I'm afraid we could not accept an article on that subject, regardless of any other considerations. SeraphimbladeTalk to me20:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Re Direct Drive.
Thanks for the feedback. I wish to nail the problem here. Are adjectives not permitted? Is an attempt to describe something not permitted? If you listen to the voice of Derek Green anyone with a cursory knowledge of the band Earth Wind And Fire and their singer Philip Bailey would be hard pressed not to note the similarity and relative unusual nature of the voice. This is in no way an attempt to compare the music or the bands merely descriptive.
Anyone who knows Paul Hardcastle would agree with 'effervescent'. I could use other words but 'effervescent' covers it. I do not consider this praise of any kind merely an adjective to describe his personality. This does not imply any reference to his abilities or otherwise and/or kudos for the band.
I absolutely agree that in hind sight "...beautiful and expressive voice..."for Helen Rogers was close to praise. But non was intended... merely an attempt to describe her voice. The reason for doing so being because the nature of the different singers used in the journey of the band was very different and it was an attempt to show this. Another way would clearly be better.
Do you consider the links which I attached to that which I posted on your site inadequate for the band to be included in Wikipedia? They are independant of anything within the control of the band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisiswhatwefind (talk • contribs) 16:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
@Thisiswhatwefind: Alright, that's a common source of confusion. I'll try to provide some clarification, and I do know it's a very different style of writing from what most people are used to. Let me give you an attempt to show you what I mean. In one that I wrote, Kelli Scarr, note the feedback from NPR. First, I don't put that "in Wikipedia's voice", and no, peacock terms like that normally shouldn't be done that way. If no reliable source had ever expressed that view, it would be inappropriate for me to have included that in the article, even if I were really sure it were so.
If a critic favorably reviewed a band, movie, game, etc., we might note that in the article, but would attribute that to the critic, not say it in our own editorial voice. But articles aren't for publishing our own thoughts about what something sounds like. An article isn't a music review, and it certainly should never be one by the editor writing it. I shouldn't even be able to tell someone's personal opinion when they write about something, it should be based solely upon summarizing verifiable and already published material. Even if you're absolutely certain that anyone listening to it would come to the same conclusion, if reliable sources haven't actually said it, we can't have that in an article. If a reliable reference has expressed that opinion, we can include that as appropriate in the article, but in their voice, not Wikipedia's. Does that make more sense? SeraphimbladeTalk to me17:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Re Direct Drive
Thanks very much for the clarification in the different styles of writing. I think the penny has dropped. And the value of Wikipedia has been well outlined by you.
I will go through the piece again with this in mind. It is good that persons such as yourself are looking after the integrity of Wikipedia.
Could you send what I wrote to my 'sandbox' so that I can go through it with my present understanding in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisiswhatwefind (talk • contribs) 16:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Re Direct Drive Thanks for your offer to review it after I've given it a rewrite. Much appreciated. It appears though that now my restored sandbox has been deleted by somebody else v soon after you restored it ....
18:50, 27 December 2015 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page User:Thisiswhatwefind/sandbox (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) Should I contact RHanworth or can you notify him of our discussions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisiswhatwefind (talk • contribs)
Excuse me. I am lead writer for the Signpost's "Arbitration Report" and am wondering if you would be interested in answering some interviews questions as an outgoing Arbitrator. The questions will be asked through email, unless answering them here would be a more suitable choice. GamerPro6418:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
@GamerPro64: I would be happy to answer the questions (within the bounds of confidentiality, of course). I would prefer to answer them here on my talk page. Could you post them here, or are they available at a central location? SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
1. First off, thank you for your work as an Arbitrator.
Appreciated.
2. What would you say was the biggest challenge while being an Arbitrator?
Being an arbitrator means handling difficult and often sensitive issues that take a great variety of types, and probably don't have an easy to see good outcome. The greatest challenge was having to choose between several options when all the options were terrible and the only possible goal was to choose the least bad.
3. Has there been any cases or motions you thought could have been handled differently while on the Committee?
The reason we have several people on the Committee is to check and balance one another, and we certainly did that. I don't, however, recall any time that I had a glaring, absolute disagreement with the rest of the Committee. In the end, we were generally able to come to solutions that, even if they were not any one arbitrator's ideal, we could come to agreement on and live with. I do wish that more was able to be done with the Arbitration Enforcement 2 case, but I don't fault the drafters or anyone else for that. It was very challenging to come up with anything that wasn't just going to add fuel to the fire and make the whole mess worse.
4. Do you feel that you did enough during your time on the panel? If not, what were you hoping to accomplish during your time?
Depends on the definition of "enough", I suppose. I certainly spent a great deal of time doing it, but it is a volunteer position and we all have real lives too. I did hope to work with the Committee to get a better system of task management set up, as right now a great deal comes in through email and it's easy to lose track of things that way. Unfortunately, though, and perhaps ironically, there was never time. I'd certainly encourage the 2016 Committee to give it some thought.
5. What advice would you give to hopefuls who want to take part in the Committee?
You better have a thick skin and some free time. Like I said above, sometimes you're choosing the least bad of several terrible options. But since it is still terrible, well, it's going to be your fault (even though you're not the one who made the mess; much like the good old balloon joke). Also, no one's kidding about the amount of time it takes. Plan to spend at absolute minimum five to ten hours a week on it, more if you're drafting a case.
6. Would you consider running for Arbitrator again?
I didn't run again this year because I know 2016 will not be a year when I'd have the free time to devote to it, due to several factors in my own life. If at some point in the future I thought the next couple of years would suit doing it again, I would consider running again. Otherwise, no, it wouldn't be fair to anyone to accept the position when I wouldn't have the time to do it well.
7. Any additional comments?
There's been, for whatever reason, the idea that relations among the 2015 Committee were acrimonious. We disagreed at times, certainly, but reasonably amicably in every case I saw. The people I worked with were reasonable and open to changing their minds for a good reason. Quite realistically, if disagreements on Wikipedia were handled as peacefully and reasonably as those among the Committee, the Committee would have very little to do.
Hi Seraphimblade, the article "Fran Villalba Segarra" that I wrote was deleted for being promotional in tone. I was surprised by this, as I made several revisions when the promotional tag was first applied to remove language that might sound puffy or subjective, and for a while the page appeared with no "issues" box at the top. Apparently I didn't do a good enough job :-) I would greatly appreciate the chance to have the material again so I can make the tone of the article neutral (and add some additional references that I've been going through - they didn't go in the first time because they are in Spanish), and any feedback on improving the neutrality of the article would be very helpful of course. Would it be possible to restore the article to my sandbox or something similar? Thanks very much for your time and consideration, Ermcpeek (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
@Ermcpeek: I'm afraid the entire article is at issue, as it was essentially a CV. And there was still puff ("...driven by a passion for ethics and making the most of his life..." as one example). LinkedIn is not a "reference". In fact, the article did not cite any sources that meet the criteria for reliability. Do reliable references unaffiliated and with no interest in the subject exist that have covered this individual in reasonable depth? If so, we'd need to stick to what those references have found, not puff like his CV and what languages he speaks. If not, I'm afraid we'd be unable to accept any article on this individual at all. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Also, to add, please feel free to point me toward references in Spanish. There is no requirement that references be in English, and I can speak decent enough Spanish to read and understand them. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: Thanks for your quick reply, here are some of the sources I would like to add, please let me know if you think a good article is possible taking these into consideration (the majority are about another hosting company the subject founded "2freehosting", he is named in the articles as founder and COO or CEO, depending on the time period).
@Ermcpeek: Please carefully review the guidelines on what makes a source reliable. The ones I see here are blogs or otherwise not editorially controlled. Please let me know if there are any references available that meet these reliability criteria; no number of references that do not would help to establish notability. SeraphimbladeTalk to me10:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
KiLife Tech article deleted
Hi. We are new to Wikipedia. We have a startup company in Utah that is very prominent and have been featured by a lot of media. We have also closed the NASDAQ in NYC in October of 2015. I noticed that as soon as we published our wikipedia article it was immediately flagged for copyright (which isn't surprising since we took a lot of the content from our website) and it was also flagged as being advertising and not encyclopedic in nature. As we are new and don't really understand everything about how wikipedia works we quickly researched and edited the article to be neutral and re-wrote the copyrighted content from the website so it would not be flagged for that. However the article was still deleted. I am wondering what we can do to get it back up? We used a lot of sources within the article as requested. Our citations and sources are from very prominent reliable sources including Forbes, Business Week, Rice University, Brigham Young University, and local and national press. Can you provide us some guidance so we can get the article back up? Thank you so much for mentoring some Wikipedia newbies! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffhall24 (talk • contribs)
@Jeffhall24: From the use of "we" here, I'd presume that some of the editors on that article might be affiliated with the company. Please note that there are some disclosures if one is editing Wikipedia for pay of any kind, including in the course of employment. It's mandatory to make those disclosures in that case. So far as the "article", it was really just a product brochure. It wasn't primarily about the company, its history, etc. Really the only information about it is the glowing puffery that it'd been "recognized" (by saying what?) by several media sources, had won a "prestigious" (this is peacock language) competition, etc. It's very difficult to remain neutral when writing about oneself, one's relatives and close friends, one's employer or company, and the like (not just for you, it'd be really hard for anyone to maintain neutrality in that case), and so for that matter we generally discourage the practice. So far as the referencing, the Forbes article is one good source. The Bloomberg piece only mentions the subject in passing, there's no usable reference material there. The GeekWire piece is just a brief product review, and the Babyology piece is advertorial. Other sources are mentioned but not cited, so I don't know if they would work. We'd be looking for multiple references more toward the reliability and depth of coverage of the Forbes piece before it'd be possible to put together an article from those references. Even if an article were possible, it would need to be a neutral summary of the company and what it does. Of course that would touch on what it sells, but it wouldn't be a brochure for it. SeraphimbladeTalk to me11:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
IBA GmbH article deleted
Hi Seraphimblade, I am new at Wikipedia and the first article I wrote was deleted after some days. This was my first Wikipedia article and I understand that the reason for deletion was that the article was not neutral enough, right? Is it possible for you to restore the article so that I can further improve the content? If this is possible (would be great), where I can find the article then? Maybe you can help me with some examples where I should rewrite the text to be then a good article for Wikipedia. Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AssMTbio (talk • contribs)
@AssMTbio: Advertisements are not restored. First, I'll ask you to note that if you are in any way being paid or compensated to write on Wikipedia (including via employment), you'll need to disclose some specifics about that. These disclosures are mandatory for paid editors. Also, if you are editing for pay or affiliated with this article subject, the best practice is to request that edits be made, and allow editors without a conflict of interest to review them for appropriateness and neutrality. This aside, on the specifics, the article was a marketing brochure. It was full of the "®" symbol (we never use that in articles, and it's often a sure sign of marketing), and contained a bunch of puff and marketese ("...dedicated to develop, produce and sell high quality products..." and "...comprehensive portfolio..." as a couple examples but hardly the only ones). For an article to be possible, it would need to be written in a neutral tone, using material from high-quality reliable sources not affiliated with or having an interest in the article subject and having covered it in reasonable depth. If such reference material exists, it is possible an appropriate article could be written from that material. If reasonable amounts of such reference material does not exist, we cannot accept an article on that subject at all. SeraphimbladeTalk to me12:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
@Hmlarson: The consensus of those who discussed the crucial point, availability of references, was that there was not sufficient material available to sustain an article. Those who argued to keep seemed primarily to point at a Wikiproject essay. This would not hold any water, especially in the face of insufficient reference material. SeraphimbladeTalk to me17:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not going to modify the discussion, no. I sometimes do that for AfDs that have been widely attended and highly contentious, but not as much for the run of the mill ones. I am, of course, always happy to explain my reasoning upon request, as here. SeraphimbladeTalk to me17:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Robin Haley. 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. Hmlarson (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
This was deleted after a full discussion period, so it was deleted neither without discussion nor quickly. There were several good arguments in favor of deletion presented, and nothing but incoherent walls of text in response to them. SeraphimbladeTalk to me22:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Dear admin. I wrote that the discussion was a long time ago in Russian Wikipedia, it was linked to another article. And here is another article, but the same person. I'm sorry, but You probably do not understand or do not understand? Moreover, there was a request Rad8 support. You apparently didn't read to the end, after the wall? "Rambling wall" (your expression) was devoted to the conflict Dubrow-Garifullin. Dubrow therefore not objective.
In addition, after the wall, were the arguments presented, revealing the falsification opponent Akim Dubrow. Here they are:
In fact:
newspapers • books • scholar •
The above figures Akim Dubrow (Find sources: "Ramil Garifullin" – • newspapers • books • scholar • highbeam •JSTOR) wrong!
Here are the correct figures:
Ramil Garifullin has a Large number of citations in Scopus (will introduce later)
Keep. "dishonest pseudoscience works" - it is only opinion of Akim Dubrow based on only one internet post about Edward Snowden, not on books, newspaper articles, TV and radio broadcasts.
"no slightest response" Well. Most of them are at Kazan, Tatarstan, not central Moscow, so what? Ramil Garifullin was a participant of Tatarstan government projects. He has books, newspaper articles, TV shows and radio broadcasts, maybe local, not federal, but he has them.
So only bad English language of article remains... Is it a serious reason for deleting? I don`t think so.--Rad8 (talk) 09:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello. Per WP:DELREVD I am speaking to you first prior to a deletion review. I feel that you did not interpret the consensus properly when closing the discussion. The nominator's concern was about independent notability. I addressed that with multiple sources which included an interview, existence of a museum dedicated to the person, and also appealed to WP:ANYBIO with sources showing how instrumental Nagai was to the manga industry and his influence on notable artists that were mentioned. Jun_Kayama made a fair point before evidence of notability was provided. Then in response to Knowledgekid87 I gave the aforementioned information. Then Michitaro solidified the evidence of independent notability in what should have been a Keep !vote. Finally, DGG made some silly argument about how one article is sufficient, which has no basis in policy. The consensus was clearly leaning towards keep based on the evidence provided. I would like to make a friendly reminder that AFDs are not a vote and that the edit notice on AFDs says "valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements". I look forward to hearing back from you. Opencooper (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid that even the arguments that came after yours tended to refute your assertion that sufficient source material exists. But it's always the case that if it does, an article is at that point acceptable. Could you please point out the specific sources that you believe meet the criteria for reliability, are independent of the subject, and cover the subject (in the case of a biography, the individual themself, not their work or other ancillary matters) in reasonable depth? I'd quite happily undelete if you can show me that, but in the AfD, you just seemed to point at a couple interviews and some coverage of their work. We'd need actual biographical material for a biography of a living person. SeraphimbladeTalk to me08:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Afraid not. That one was well over a week old, it was actually two, so it was ready to close. That's a hazard of commenting on AfDs that are up for closure; I've had it happen to me too. I don't object to a speedy renomination, that discussion was pretty well in a tangle and I don't think one more comment would've sorted out the morass. Maybe a new discussion about the references a participant found could better determine if they're enough to sustain an article or not. SeraphimbladeTalk to me01:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Some consistency? (You warned me to honor Futher Perfect at Sunrise's instructions to not post at his Talk page again, under threat of sanction on me by you if I did. OK. But see here: FPAS posted to The Rambling Man's Talk, Jan 10, 23:00, after TRM's instructions at 22:38, Jan 10, that FPAS not post there.)
(Basically, it seems weird that you caution me for something re FPAS, then ignore when FPAS does that very thing you caution about, to someone else. If the warning you gave *me* is good to honor instructions to not post to a user's Talk page, then the same warning must also be good for FPAS, *especially* he is admin and has expectation to follow rules & best practice more than say, a reg editor. But I guess too, it all makes perfect sense, if there are different rules that apply to admins, than reg editors, and by different I mean lower or degraded standard of behavior. Do you think so? Because again that is really the shortest distance between two points to understand this difference, or if not, then just disagree w/ me and I'll consider your reasoning.)
You suggested I come to your Talk if I had any Q. I don't have any Q about your warning to me, I had no intention to post at FPAS Talk again after thanking him, so your warning was really unnecessary, however, I do understand it nevertheless. (My Q is about the apparent double-standard, that's all.)
The explanation is nothing so nefarious as you seem to think. It is, rather, that I'm not capable of monitoring every edit in real time, and can only react to the ones I notice and have time to address. I didn't react to FPAS' edit because I do not watch TRM's talk page. Even if I did, no guarantee I'd have seen that edit or had time to handle it. I do appreciate that you'll stop posting there, and will put TRM's talk on watch in case of flare up. Hopefully, there will be nothing to see. SeraphimbladeTalk to me22:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Well believe it or not, I didn't suspect (or assume) anything nefarious on anyone's part. (I guess I could have expressed the same idea to you as "Hey why don't you also at this time warn FPAS, as you warned me?" [Sometimes I just don't know how to express things, when I choose the wrong way Drmies typically calls me asinine, so thx for any understanding you can offer.]) OK. (Hey I also have a low expectation of consistency on the WP, you restored some faith in that. So Happy New Year, too.) p.s. FPAS is an admin so knows he shouldn't have posted to TRM's Talk after TRM told him not to, right, so it's fair to presume he was being asinine *intentionally*, right!? (You don't have to answer.) Sincere, IHTS (talk) 08:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Q re notability
I see by your user pg you are deletionist. (I can respect that. Or inclusionist, too [which I probably am]. Anything w/ a consistent philosophy deserves respect.) Well can I ask you a Q re notability that has been bugging me re some articles I have created some time ago, any comments appreciated (I proposed to ask BMK the same Q prev, but he said that area wasn't his forte, so we didn't get into any specifics). Thx for consider. IHTS (talk) 09:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Well basically earlier in my edit history I created several (mostly chess variant) articles having only one source (David Pritchard's ECV and usually too the 2nd edition CECV). (Some examples are Beirut Chess, Troy (chess variant).) Even though obviously I felt/feel these are sweet little topics, they don't have "significant coverage by multiple sources" per GNG. (Pritchard himself described most of the 1,450 CVs in ECV as "forgettable".) I don't want to AfD one of my own articles out of POINTy curiosity, but I would like to know if articles like these satisfy notability, since I'd like to create some more from the 1,450 in time perhaps (but not a lot, but honestly my criteria was subjective - I liked the games personally, thought they offered something unusual or attractive). If one of the articles were AfD'd by someone I'm sure I'd add to discussion that there are very few books on CVs, few sources in general, and that is the nature of the beast regarding the entire CV category, and so multiple sources w/ significant coverage isn't realistic for the category, and that GNG is intentionally written flexible to allow for such situation. (Anyway those would be my arguments, but I don't know how it would go, and I'm concerned too that one AfD wouldn't be reliable since it seems my Q is a general one [it is, right?] and multi articles under the same parameter should have same disposition, whereas AfDs are article-specific and could produce disparate results.) Have I described my Q sufficiently to understand what & why I'm asking for experienced view? Thx no hurry. OK, IHTS (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The Beirut chess bit is rather funny, if you like that type of humor. It does seem this Pritchard is a well-regarded author in the area, so I think at least a reasonable case could be made that his book would count as a secondary reference on it. Since they don't seem to be particularly controversial subjects, I wouldn't have the same type of concerns with neutrality as I would with using a single source in other areas. So—meh. I dunno how they'd come out at AfD, but I wouldn't AfD them myself. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Seraphimblade. I've been wanting to post some thank you notices to the outgoing Arbs, but circumstances have prevented me from doing so until now. Anyway, I thought I'd drop a quick note to say thank you for your hard work on the committee. There were a few areas where I know I really appreciated your help, your sensible suggestions and your knowledge/experience - I think you made a great arb. WormTT(talk) 14:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
@Worm That Turned: Much appreciated, especially from you. I also often appreciated your thoughts and analysis on things that came up, and found them clear and thorough. If you have the time in the future, I hope you'll consider standing again. SeraphimbladeTalk to me15:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Good God, don't I know what you mean there. It was an interesting experience, certainly, and I'm not sorry to have done it, but I'm not sure if I'd do it again. If nothing else, blocking out that much time for a two year period isn't an easy thing to do. SeraphimbladeTalk to me15:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
If you get a chance, take a look and see if it is acceptable. I'd appreciate it.
(I only did minimum retouching since the flaws didn't detract from the subject matter)
I did the research on E. Keigwin and found his obit from 1898.
"Squire Keigwin was born in Jeffersonville December 14, 1831, and in his
eighteenth year became one of the famous '49 gold hunters. After several
years as a prospector, he went to San Francisco. The outbreak of the war
found him following the Federal army as an itinerant photographer."
@JeffersonClark: That's a very interesting one as well. Looks like there's some doubt as to who it actually is (I wonder if there are any other contemporary portraits or the like of him to compare it to, or even detailed physical descriptions?), but still a nice period photo. I think the retouching is done very well, but I'm generally in favor of that being understated rather than overstated. I don't expect a photograph from the 1800s to look like a modern-day glossy print, and I think it's really weird when people do that to them. SeraphimbladeTalk to me15:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh there are a lot of photos. Seems that the general was a bit egocentric.
Wish that I could have found one with the raised eyebrow but here are a few of the good ones.
I'd put money on it myself but, unless I could find a record, ledger, log or other document from the photographer, then I can't say it's a 100% Burnside. The only picture that I can find of his wife is a b&w ink portrait and, if the picture is really Burnside, the artist was extremely 'kind'. JeffersonClark (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
@Cavarrone: I think that more than addresses the concerns at the AfD about adequate referencing, and it sure does look like she's gotten a good deal more coverage in the meantime. I've lifted the create protection. SeraphimbladeTalk to me09:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Jews for Jesus Wikipedia Page
Thank you for getting back to me. Regarding the lead sentence, thanks for clarifying that it usually does not have a footnote and that it should reflect the body of the article
Regarding the use of the term "convert," I am not alone in my reluctance to use this term. The following website gives this advice about talking with Jewish people about Jesus: "'Convert' implies leaving behind one’s Jewishness. It is better to speak about 'becoming a believer (or follower) of Jesus.' But it is appropriate to explain that biblical conversion was spoken of by the prophets as meaning “turning back to God” rather than “changing one’s religion” (see Isa. 44:22; Jer. 4:1; 24:7; Joel 2:12).
Here's a similar thought from another website: "Many Jews don’t like to be called converts since they already believed in God, and in their religious observances, they were already responding to that part of the Word of God in the Tanakh, or what we call the Old Testament. When we recognize the Messiah and enter His Church, we fulfill or complete our Old Testament Faith. But we do not lose our ethnicity, who we are."
I agree that my suggested change to the lead sentence is a bit formal. How about this instead: Jews for Jesus is a non-profit organization founded in 1973 which seeks to share its belief that Jesus is the promised Messiah of the Jewish people.
Also, I notice that someone has deleted several of the extensive criticisms and that the article now appears much more balanced. There are several other things that I believe need editing, but I would like to first get the editors to agree to changing the opening sentence. What do you think of my suggested change?Messianicmatt (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and I've posted my suggested change on the Jews for Jesus Talk page and have not received any comments back. Should I go ahead and make my suggested change to the lead sentence?Messianicmatt (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Minicom.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
My name is Mohan, and I wanted to follow-up on the deletion of an article on Ashoka fellow and the founder of Design for Change, Kiran Bir Sethi.
I created a Wikipedia talk / articles for deletion: Kiran Sethi page; I wasn't sure if that was the appropriate venue to reach out to the editors, so I have taken the liberty of editing your talk page. I am a wikipedia noob, so please excuse any violations of protocol.
I have read the project deletion logs and understand why the page was deleted. Among others, I recognize the following issues:
a) Incomplete or absent secondary attribution
b) Language was promotional.
Would it be possible for me to resubmit a completely rewritten article with both primary & secondary citations for review?
Alternatively, can I create the page again with the new content and submit it for your review?
I have also pasted the text of the message here for easier reference:
"
Dear Oshwah,
Thank you for replying so promptly, and having the patience and consideration to explain how the AFD works to a newbie like me.
I based my request on the following comment by user DDG on the deleted article's talk page, where he wrote the following comment:
"It is possible that she is notable, but if so, the article still needs to be deleted and started over. As David Eppstein said, the promotionalism is too pervasive. I also tried to see if a little rewriting would help, and failed also. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason."
It was based on this comment as well as the discussion that preceded this comment that I made my request. Please advise if, given these observations by the editors in the talk page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kiran_Bir_Sethi, could I request a review of an rewritten article that attempts to address the issues.
For instance, in terms of notability, among many other achievements, Design For Change, the movement started by Kiran Sethi, was recently identified by the UN as one of 15 programs that can help achieve its global goals for sustainable development. UN Global Goals Programs. We would like to, if possible, add an article on the Design for Change movement Design for Change and like Kiran's biography to this article.
Once again, thank you for your time! :)
Thank you!
"
Best,
Mohan
Let's start with who "we" is? If you're being employed or compensated to do this, you must disclose that fact. The specific disclosures that are required are found here. If you are not, then that's fine too, just let me know. Once we've settled that, I can give you better advice on how to proceed appropriately. SeraphimbladeTalk to me03:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
March drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 28 people who signed up, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.
April blitz: The one-week April blitz, again targeting our long requests list, will run from April 17–23. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the requests page. Sign up here!
May drive: The month-long May backlog-reduction drive, with extra credit for articles tagged in March, April, and May 2015, and all request articles, begins May 1. Sign up now!
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis, and Baffle gab1978.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
Attention requested at arbitration amendment request
Hello. Your attention is requested at the recently-filed Doncram arbitration amendment request seeking to lift arbitration sanctions on Doncram (talk·contribs). Please review the amendment request at your convenience, and if so inclined, give a statement addressing why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request. For the Committee, Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 04:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
@Ranganathancse: The most recent iteration was "Helpchat is a personal assistant app that helps people get more things done. Be it anything, from recharging your phone to booking a cab, from booking movie tickets to food ordering, from shopping assistance to finding deals & coupons, from personalised news, to intelligent reminders." That's language that could have come straight out of a glossy sales brochure. Also, there was a previous consensus to delete the article at a deletion discussion. Please keep in mind that all content on Wikipedia must be strictly neutral in both content and tone, and that we can only accept articles on subjects that have been reasonably extensively covered in reliable sources not affiliated with the subject. At this time, it doesn't look like an article about this app would be appropriate at all. If in the future it is, you can see an article like Waze to get an idea of how to write neutrally about mobile software. SeraphimbladeTalk to me20:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I just wanted to apologize for the Ariane_de_Rothschild_Fellowship page you deleted, as its style was indeed not respecting the Wikipedia guidelines.
As this operation was not focused on advertising, but rather on completing the Wikipedia pages on the Rothschild family, I'll submit a most appropriate version of this article in a few weeks.
I will make all the efforts to respect the Wikipedia guidelines, and will stay available if you want to make any inquiry about the article.
Hi Seraphimblade, Apologies for the interruption. W.r.t the threaded discussion in the appeal at WP:AE, I would personally have preferred to comment in a separate section, but felt obliged to follow the instructions implicit in the section header. I am happy to refactor my comments into a separate section now, if that is your preference. I have also opened a new section[35] on the Talk page, to discuss if we should change the format for future appeals. - Ryk72'c.s.n.s.'23:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
@Ryk72: That was my mistake, which was why I removed my comment. I thought your comments were in MarkBernstein's section, but they were in the discussion section. Sorry for the confusion. SeraphimbladeTalk to me03:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Todd, I've proposed a motion in response to the Doncram amendment request which removes the topic ban you placed. I'm normally very hesitant to override the enforcement decisions of admins where there hasn't been an appeal to AE/AN. I've done it this time as it's part of a wider set of provisions. Before voting on it though, I'd appreciate any more information/evidence you can present supporting your previous statement that we shouldn't change Doncram's restrictions. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, I've responded there. I don't really have any objection, but there was one part of the motion that was unclear to me that I detailed at ARCA. SeraphimbladeTalk to me14:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Tom McGrath
I don't understand the rapid deletion, or the somewhat glib comment about "fluff." All the changes I made were carefully researched and footnoted and the matters in question are all without doubt factually correct so it's not an issue of innacuracy. I don't see how updating the url for mcgrath's current company is fluff, or updating his employer for that matter as he has not been with Key brand for almost 4 years from what I learned. STX Entertainment is a major announcement in the entertainment business - I was at their presentation at Cinemacon in Las Vegas which is what brought it to mind and their presentation is a game changing event and he was in on the formation. I also don't see how adding research footnotes to otherwise unchanged text is fluff, or fixing broken links, or clarifying cross references to eliminate disambiguation notices, or updating references to include the STX investor group. I understood the comment on the mcgrath's theater credits to be one of research, not fluffiness. I checked many other theater producers in Wikipedia to see if such lists were common and they are, particularly when the credits go beyond those on the broadway database. I note that similar objections as those made to mcgrath were made on his former partner's page, John Gore, but his virtually identical credits are still there (including London) and have never been deleted or commented on. I also checked the other STX executives who have similar and even more extensive descriptions of STX in their pages, but their company descriptions were not deleted as being fluffy. One such executive has virtually no credentials beyond being at STX, but her page is unchallenged. I don't understand this process or the selective nature of the deletion, so I am writing to you to learn more. I will be in China most of the next week but will check here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.107.87.35 (talk) 05:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Far too much irrelevant detail. Articles aren't meant to be a CV or puff piece. If there are some pieces out of date or factual inaccuracies, that's one thing, but it's not appropriate to have lists of investors in companies he has something to do with, editorial fluff like "...a well-known Hollywood film producer and entrepreneur...", "...Tony Award-winning producer...", "...aims to identify properties from the Fox film library suitable for stage adaptation, and then shepherd those projects through creative development, reading and workshop phases...". The article should be primarily about him, not go into a bunch of detail about his projects. If those projects are notable in their own right and sufficient reference material is available, we could use stuff like that, but still not with marketese like "shepherd". The article should not read like a CV, it should read like a biography. SeraphimbladeTalk to me15:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Also, I note that this article has been a significant area of interest for you. While you may not have known, please keep in mind that if you are being paid or compensated for work on this article, disclosure of that fact is required. SeraphimbladeTalk to me15:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
It's been an item of interest for a couple of days - maybe four or five hours total effort. I own movie theaters in the Scandinavian and N. European countries which brought me to Las Vegas a few weeks ago. I looked up the principals of this company and noticed that this bio was incomplete and heavily redacted, mostly by yourself. I found the background, including live theater, music and movies, particularly interesting as I have seen numerous of the shows he or his companies produced either in NY or London. A seven-time tony award winner is unusual so I read other biographies of theatre producers and saw that these kinds of things are in all the other articles. I think the deal to develop theatrical productions with Fox was a major transaction, at least based on Variety and Backstage coverage and any announcement of a new show written by Harvey Fierstein and Alan Menken is major news as they are two of the very most important theatre composers and writers. The language about STX was borrowed from the company descriptions for STX contained in the other executives' biographies and the main STX article itself where it was left untouched. This is a far shorter version and much more "just the facts." Every article about the company mentions the investors so it seemed normal. Why would it not be redacted from all the articles including the other STX executives? Finally, the listing of credits is in almost every major theatre producer's Wikipedia bio - most notably his former partner - so why not here? I still don't understand why the technical corrections were all deleted, it seems a bit heavy handed but I won't change anything if you are objecting. This is the first time I tried this so I don't understand all these rules of the road or why things are just automatically deleted.Thorshammer1 (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I've created a new article for Malaysian Volunteer Fire and Rescue Association to be published by Wiki, but unfortunately has been deleted by you for reason as below:-
A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)
G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion
-The organization is a reputable search & rescue NGO in Malaysia and it serve as a backup for the Malaysia Fire & Services Department. The organisation represents Malaysia to serve in the international disaster operation. There is no promotion or advertising as such. All statement is backup by reference and citation. I humbly request your guidance to direct me to edit the article so that it fulfills wiki publishing criteria.
@Mvfra: Firstly, please review our guidelines on conflict of interest and paid editing, as your username makes it appear you may be affiliated with the organization in question. As to the reason for deletion, it was because the article read essentially like a glossy brochure or the organization's own marketing material on their web page. Being referenced is not enough; all Wikipedia content must also be strictly neutral. Long lists of awards, regurgitations of "mission" and "vision" statements, and the like, are not appropriate content for an encyclopedia article. By way of comparison for a reasonably decent article about such an organization, see New York Fire Department. SeraphimbladeTalk to me14:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Dear Seraphimblade,
Thank you for the reply. The article created was based on the Fire and Rescue Department of Malaysia, Disaster Preparedness and Response Team wiki page format. If the article that was created doesn't meet the criteria of wiki, then likewise that page should be deleted as well. Choice of username shouldn't even be a consideration factor in this course.
I hope you don't mind me adjusting the log to link the current discussion rather than the whole history. Given HughD's history, I'm certain finding it easily may be needed at some time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
An ARE discussion, a block, an Arbcom enforcement sanction and the notice on a phone? That's impressive enough lol. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Heh. I've been using portable devices longer than most, at least since my Palm, so I'm somewhat used to it. They're much more capable now, and my bus ride in the morning is long. SeraphimbladeTalk to me22:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
It will be closed by the first person to have time to close it and do the "paperwork" associated with it. That may or may not be me, but badgering me won't give me time to do it any sooner. We're all volunteers here. SeraphimbladeTalk to me12:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Petite Meller
Hi there - Apologies for editing without explaining changes. The original article didn't quote it's source for birthdate which is inaccurate. Best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellohatchy (talk • contribs) 16:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Every Nation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Church. 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.
@Omrov: The article was clearly promotional. It was full of "Mr.", which we don't use (it would just be "Shroff" after the first mention, which would be first and last name). It was full of puffery like "...Indian business magnate...", "...a private conglomerate well established in the IT, Furniture, Hospitality, Beverage and Pharmaceutical Industry." (for this last, there's also the issue of way too much capitalization), "...His dedication and hard work at Al Habtoor Motors...", "...unique value proposition...", "...company provided excellent after sales service...", "...reputation for excellent financial management...". All that is marketese and puffery, and not a bit of it is referenced by an independent reliable source actually saying those things about him. We do not allow the use of Wikipedia for promotion, not of anyone or anything. All articles must be strictly neutral in tone and content, should avoid adjective overload and stay to neutral descriptions well supported by references, and should absolutely not be or read like a CV. SeraphimbladeTalk to me22:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello everyone, welcome to the June 2016 GOCE newsletter. It's been a few months since we sent one out; we hope y'all haven't forgotten about the Guild! Your coordinators have been busy behind the scenes as usual, though real life has a habit of reducing our personal wiki-time. The May backlog reduction drive, the usual coordinating tasks and preparations for the June election are keeping us on our toes!
May drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's record-setting backlog reduction drive. Of the 29 people who signed up, 16 copyedited at least one article, 197 copyedits were recorded on the drive page, and the copyedit backlog fell below 1,500 for the first time! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.
June Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz will occur from 12 June through 18 June; the themes will be video games and Asian geography.
Coordinator elections:
It's election time again; how quickly they seem to roll around! Nominations for the next tranche of Guild coordinators, who will serve a six-month term that begins at 00:01 UTC on 1 July and ends at 23:59 UTC on 31 December, opens at 00:01 UTC on 1 June and closes at 23:59 UTC on 15 June. Voting takes place between 00:01 UTC on 16 June and 23:59 UTC on 30 June. If you'd like to assist behind the scenes, please consider stepping forward; self-nominations are welcomed and encouraged. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are eligible; remember it's your Guild, and it doesn't run itself!
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
Hi. I am the owner of In The Loop Magazine. I created a page for it today. Almost as soon as I posted it, it was deleted. I went back and reviewed the policies for creating a new page and don't see anything wrong. Can you please review it and let me know what I did wrong? It pretty much follows other music magazine pages to a T. Thanks. James Currie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_The_Loop_Magazine
@Beintheloop: One thing is that we usually discourage someone who has an interest in something from writing an article about it. It's not actually prohibited, but it makes it very difficult to remain neutral and to rely only on material from reliable sources rather than relying on one's personal knowledge and experience. Not a knock on you by any means, I try to stay away from writing about things I'm very close to for exactly that reason. As to specifics on the article, here's the first paragraph in the body: "Officially launching in the Spring of 2014, In The Loop Magazine was created to bring attention to the Chicago music scene not only with local artist, but the ones that became national acts as well as the club and venue scene, the producers, the agents, the managers, touring acts, the artists designing and creating multimedia for music videos, concert posters, album art and more. There are other publications that talk about music in Chicago, but the are not 100% devoted to it solely and or segregated by genres or styles. They are mixed media publications that also talk about politics, sports, gossip and other non music news related material. "In The Loop Magazine" set out to be different and promote only music news happening in the Chicagoland market." That reads like it comes out of a glossy brochure. There wouldn't be any reason for an encyclopedia article to discuss, for example, the perceived shortcomings of other magazines. The other issue was one I mentioned above, reliable references. It's required that article content be verifiable through reference material from sources that are reliable, and that don't have an interest in promoting (or denigrating) the article subject. Self-published material is usable on a limited basis for non-controversial facts, but it should never be the main basis for an article. Nor is personal knowledge or experience usable as a source, a reader should be able to verify the information. There were no reliable references cited in the article, and if there aren't any available, we wouldn't be able to have an article on the subject at all. If you do know where to find reliable source material about the magazine, that'd be a very good start. If that's not available at this time, then I'm afraid we couldn't have an article about it until such material does become available. But even with good sourcing, the article would be required to be neutral in tone and content. As it was, it read like a sales brochure. That may not have been your intent, but like above, it's really hard to stay neutral on something you're close to and passionate about. SeraphimbladeTalk to me05:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
You guessed it...
...the Toreeva delete. However good the article ended up being, WP:TNT was pretty clearly indicated, no complaints there (that's why I struck my 'delete' !v, but didn't oppose it either). But, tell me, looking at the article as it stood just prior to deletion (a lot of further work had gone into it, I think from generally disinterested parties), do think that would withstand AfD now? MuffledPocketed16:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Betting on AfD results would probably be a fool's game, I wouldn't even try. If you'd like it restored to draft space to work on and have reviewed before returning to mainspace, I wouldn't have any objection to doing that. SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd appreciate that; is the strategy to leave a tactical gap between the two events (deleting and re-presenting)? Clear the air, perhaps? Cheers, MuffledPocketed16:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh, to answer your other question, the "strategy" is no more or less than if it's reviewed at AfC and someone experienced there thinks it ought to go across, it probably should. There seemed to be a good deal of thought at the AfD that the subject might be notable, so it's worth a go. SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. It may take me a few weeks, but if I can't get it done in a reasonable length of time, I'll request deletion. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Deletion of Battleground Records
Hi Seraphimblade,
I'm here to inquire about the deletion of Battleground Records 2016-06-12, and ask that it be restored. It was deleted due to promotion of a company, and because it did not indicate the significance of the company.
On the first point, I am not a member of the label or any band on the label. I am a fan of several bands on the label, some of which I have seen in concert. Some bands have undertaken a national tour, well outside the boundaries of a local band. I used the Wiki page for Small Stone Records as a template as it is also a small label focused on similar music genres as Battleground. I have nothing to gain in promoting the label or bands on the label, and am simply attempting to give Wiki-credit for strides made by the label (and ultimately a festival) to bring music from these genres to a bigger stage.
On the second point, I felt my characterization of the label as an American independent record label, the focus of the label, linking to bands on the label who already have Wiki pages (the fact two bands under the label have Wiki pages alone provides significance to the label in terms of Wikipedia), as well as specific genre description clearly indicated the significance of the record label within the genres it targets, though I did not specifically state "this label is significant because". Granted, I did use the label's wording of what they are about in the description, but that can be easily amended. There are numerous record labels throughout Wikipedia meeting or falling short of the specifications of what I put in Battleground Records, such as Almost Ready Records, Ars Benevola Mater, Binge Records, Bellaccord Electro, Carrot Top Records (of which, issues are listed in the header at top from four years ago), Cheap Records, Glurp Records, and Humming Bird Records, to name a handful out of the hundreds of different labels within Wikipedia.
I cited my sources with the limited information available; limited due to the less than mainstream love for these types of music.
Lastly, I plan on following this page up with a Southwest Terror Fest page, which just completed its fourth year. It has been a prominent festival for bands within these genres. Battleground Records has been influential in helping bands get onto this festival.
Please consider restoring this page, and if there are major things you feel need to be addressed to bring it into compliance, please let me know. From my standpoint, I only see one major thing needing to be addressed, which is "...and promotes a stable platform for artists to build their future success on."
@Labattblueleaf: Firstly, "The label focuses all efforts on a small roster of artists in the underground music scene, and promotes a stable platform for artists to build their future success on" is straight out of a glossy sales brochure. Articles must be neutral in tone, and that is promotional language. Doesn't matter why the article is promotional or if you have any financial interest in it, it only matters that it was. As to the rest, first, Wikipedia is not Wiki, and there is no such thing as "Wiki-credit". If there's a good amount of reliable source material about the label from sources not affiliated with or having an interest in it, an article could be written using that reference material and not personal knowledge. If there is not, we cannot accept an article on the subject. Do you know where such reference material might be found? The same is true, incidentally, for bands on the label or the proposed festival article; they must be based on solid, reliable, independent source material, never personal knowledge. SeraphimbladeTalk to me09:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I did forget to address one point: "Other stuff exists". It is entirely possible for some things in a topic area to have enough source material to have an article, and others not. It is also possible, of course, that someone just hasn't noticed they don't. It looks to me like at least some of those other label articles may need to be deleted as well; I'll be reviewing them. But the existence of one poor article isn't justification for another one. SeraphimbladeTalk to me10:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Article deletion Tosin “OloriSuperGal” Ajibade
Hello dear,
The above page was recently deleted and in adherence to the rules, I want to recreate the page without the promotional slanting but a decent page that will abide by the rules. Could you kindly inform on the next steps. — Preceding Olamide Bello comment added by Olamide Bello (talk • contribs) 08:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
@Olamide Bello: First, you would need to demonstrate that this individual has been covered to a significant degree by reliable references not affiliated with or having an interest in her, and that this reference material would be sufficient to sustain a full article. What reference material would you plan on using for this purpose? (Also, I am Seraphimblade or Todd, not "dear"). SeraphimbladeTalk to me00:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for deleting Dannyflores. I went to his talk page to post the Speedy notice, and saw that he's repeatedly recreated the page under a few spellings of the name since March of this year, despite repeated warnings & one temp block for edit warring over it. Any chance you could salt or protect the most common spellings he's been using, please? :) JamesG5 (talk) 05:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello there! Fresco y Mas just got deleted because it was claimed to be promotional. Is there anyway you could guide the article to a proper form of neutralism and then make it visible again. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amstefan (talk • contribs) 18:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@Amstefan: I'm afraid the article in that form was unsalvageable. Some examples: "...has been tailored to provide the products and services that meet the needs of the community, while offering value, quality food and service with personality. The grand opening of Fresco y Más was to ensure the unique tastes and needs of the Hialeah community were accommodated with the items and amenities in their neighborhood grocer.", "...flan, tres leches, and rice pudding, made fresh daily, as well as a wider selection of local favorites", "A new $1 Zone can be found in the store with savings on more than 300 popular items available for one dollar", "BI-LO, Harveys, and Winn-Dixie are said to be regional brands with deep heritages, strong neighborhood ties, and strong commitments to providing quality and value to customers." ("Are said" by whom? See WP:WEASEL). The whole article looks like marketing copy, just going on and on about the stuff they sell. To write a proper article, it would be necessary that reliable sources with no interest in or affiliation with the subject have covered it in reasonable depth, and that the article be written to reflect only what those reliable references have to say about it. Puff and ad copy is not acceptable. If the subject hasn't been covered extensively by reliable sources, we can't accept an article on it at all. SeraphimbladeTalk to me18:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Ahh, I see you were referring to Michael Topschij. Firstly, please ensure not to blank AfD discussions, they are a record of the community discussion. Secondly, it is not appropriate to recreate an article deleted by consensus at AfD, which is why I've protected the page. Finally, it is not acceptable to use Wikipedia for promotion of any kind, which the page in question did, and that is grounds for immediate deletion even without the AfD result. SeraphimbladeTalk to me04:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Seraphimblade. I'm preparing to dip my toe back in the wikiwater after a long break and am trying to remember how to do things properly. Re your minor edit here, that's the way I wrote it when I was drafting the paragraph, but I thought it might be overlinking, since he's linked already a bit further up in the same section. I also see that subsequent mentions of him after that first link say variously "Obama" and "President Obama", and I can't find anything in the MOS to address that. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
@Rivertorch's Evil Twin: Well, glad to hear you're back around. Remember to make a new section when starting a different topic on a talk page, I've done it here. As to the edit you asked about, you're absolutely right. I searched for previous links, but must have missed that one. Thanks for noticing it. SeraphimbladeTalk to me20:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
"deleted by consensus at AfD, which is why I've protected the page." - The consensus was outdated. Following that consensus, the notable person received new articles in media, and online following has increased. There are multiple online third party sources which can blatantly justify notability, and I kindly request you look into this.
"Finally, it is not acceptable to use Wikipedia for promotion of any kind, which the page in question did" - If you've read through the page you would hopefully note that all content in that page was not of promotion nature. It was unbiased facts all taken from reliable third party sources. If you feel the page was written in a promotion like nature, why not re-create the page in a different way. Entirely removing a page due to the way it's written is biased and unfounded. --Justicebrownx (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
You have engaged in several bad faith activities here, including manipulating the date of a proposed deletion, attempting to blank an AfD page, and I suspect, using sock puppet accounts. Accordingly, I'm not particularly interested in discussing this further with you. If I'd seen you manipulating the prod date, I would've flat indeffed you. SeraphimbladeTalk to me14:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
HughD
User HughD is indefinitely topic banned from, among other things, the area of climate change. He has recently been editing at Global Climate Coalition. Would opening an enforcement request here be the appropriate thing to do in this situation? Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello everyone, and welcome to the July 2016 GOCE newsletter.
June Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 12 through 18 June; the themes were video games and Asian geography. Of the 18 editors who signed up, 11 removed 47 articles from the backlog. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all editors who took part.
Coordinator elections:
The second tranche of Guild coordinators for 2016, who will serve a six-month term until 23:59 UTC on 31 December, have been elected.
Jonesey95 remains as your drama-free Lead Coordinator, and Corinne and Tdslk are your new assistant coordinators. For her long service to the Guild, Miniapolis has been enrolled in the GOCE Hall of Fame. Thanks to everyone who voted in the election; our next scheduled one occurs in December 2016. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are eligible; self-nominations are welcome and encouraged.
July Drive:
Our month-long July Copy Editing Backlog Elimination Drive is now underway. Our aim is to remove articles tagged for copy-edit in April, May and June 2015, and to complete all requests on the GOCE Requests page from June 2016. The drive ends at 23:59 on 31 July 2016 (UTC).
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdlsk.
@Anthonykila: We don't "approve" articles, and other stuff exists is not a good reason for any article to be there. The two articles you cite are also very fluffy and not very well written at all, and I'll be taking a close look at them. Also, I note you refer to yourself as "we". Wikipedia accounts must be operated only by one individual; anyone else may make another account. If you mean by that that you are part of the organization, or another one, and are being paid or compensated to do this writing (including as an expected duty of employment), you must disclose that fact as outlined here. Let me know if that's the case, and we can proceed from there. SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Associate Professional in Human Resources
I created a page for the Associate Professional in Human Resources certification, keeping it very educational. Making no reference to any organization or product other than the certifying body. I do not understand why it was deleted, when there is currently a page for the "Professional in Human Resources" (another certification from the same certifying body). The deletion, to me, seems contradictory to what is currently being permitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HR Cert Prep (talk • contribs) 15:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
@HR Cert Prep: Taking a look at the article, first, it's full of the "™" symbol. In my experience, an article like that is almost certain to be spam, we do not use trademark symbols in articles. From there, it's a glossy brochure describing the exam and touting its benefits, and not citing a single reliable reference. The "Professional in Human Resources" is not blatant spam, but I may see if it also needs to be nominated for deletion. There aren't any good independent references there, either. Regardless, existence of similar articles is not justification for any other article, only sufficient reliable reference material to sustain an article is.
Also, your username seems to indicate you may be involved with this organization. If you are being paid or compensated for the writing (including as an expected duty of employment), you must disclose that fact as outlined here. Please let me know if this is or is not the case, and we can proceed from there. SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
As it so turns out, it looks like there are several reputable published sources about the "Professional in Human Resources" one, so that one should be alright to stay. I don't find a similar amount of references for the "associate" one, though, so at most it might merit a brief mention in that article, not a separate one. SeraphimbladeTalk to me17:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
The Deletionist
Hi Seraphimblade
I did not post the CIAPS article.
I used the "we" because we studied your deletions (and some other deletions) with some mates to see if we could catch a pattern and understand the rules.
The two articles we referenced were chosen because they were about similar topics.
I wrote you using the CIAPS article as a case study because I was hoping for some specifics rather than the all-encompassing G11 code.
Thank you for taking time to reply.
Anthonykila (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I'm not sure how interesting of a project it'll be (maybe good for curing insomnia?), but you're welcome to ask questions if you have them. The rules are pretty simple, at least as to that: Wikipedia may not be used to promote anyone or anything. In the case of CIAPS, the article took a glowing, promotional tone throughout, and was just a list of "Look how great we are!". Some examples: "CIAPS has undertaken a series of projects designed and managed by its faculty and students. These are inter-faculty projects designed to provide students the opportunity to put into practice what they learn in the classrooms. Some of the projects include:", glossy brochure material, "Mprivilege is an online magazine conceived by CIAPS from the simple but powerful notion that motherhood is a privilege.", adjective overload and also glossy brochure, and so on and so on. It's not an encyclopedia article, it's an ad. SeraphimbladeTalk to me17:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Rfc needed
Regarding your closure of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Debresser. I would suggest to add something to the closure. Namely that the ruling is ad hoc, in the sense that it does not mean to imply that any Rfc can not be overturned only by another Rfc. This seems obvious, but it is a potential misunderstanding IMHO. Debresser (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually, generally speaking, what you say is true. An RfC, especially one well publicized and well attended, is a strong expression of community consensus. Before acting against that consensus, it would be necessary for a new RfC to demonstrate that consensus has in fact changed, not that someone just "slipped one by" while no one was watching. SeraphimbladeTalk to me18:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Could you support that opinion of yours by any policy or guideline? I think not, but I wouldn't mind if you prove me wrong. Debresser (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
It has generally been policy that, once established, consensus may not be acted against except by a new consensus of at least the same gravity, and cannot be unilaterally overturned or acted against. I don't think that needs to be written explicitly into policy, it's simple common sense. SeraphimbladeTalk to me20:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
You say this has been policy. Could you point to other examples?
As to the theory behind it, my common sense says that any type of consensus can overturn a previous consensus of any type. I would actually prefer the other way of stating this, that no type of consensus precludes other types. I do agree that 2 editors on a talkpage should not be overly eager to agree on something that would change a consensus that was reached in a project wide Rfc, but if there is good reason for the change and some reasonable participation, I see no reason why not.
In addition, I think that common sense is not enough of a foundation for such a restriction, and the fact that there is nothing about this at all in any policy or guideline, is fair proof that such a rule does not exist. Debresser (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
WP:CCC says "Editors may propose a consensus change by discussion or editing." I think this is very clear proof that what you claim is not policy. Even the continuation of that paragraph "That said, in most cases, an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion." says clearly that this is not mandatory. Obviously, in view of that fact, the policy does not stipulate that if that discussion was an Rfc that the next discussion must be an Rfc as well. Debresser (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I've no intent of engaging in a lengthy argument with you about this. That's the practice as it's done today. It may be true that a new RfC would not be required in all cases, but "should", on a policy page, is clearly language instructing that under normal circumstances it should be so. Regardless, the issue is settled for Jerusalem. SeraphimbladeTalk to me20:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
The word "should" refers to "discussion". Which wouldn't usually mean an Rfc. Yes, regarding the Jerusalem article that seems to be the consensus of ArbCom, although that is precisely what I am not happy with. Debresser (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry you're unhappy with the result, but I'm afraid I'm not intending to change it. If you'd like to avail yourself of the appeals process beyond discussing it with me, you may find the details here on how to do so. SeraphimbladeTalk to me18:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for that link. I am fine with the final outcome in this specific case. It is more the approach, that this would be a general rule, which I reject. Debresser (talk) 09:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I approved your account request. :) Just as an aside, there's nothing forcing you to use a real-sounding name (or your real name, or whatever Todd Allen is) as opposed to OTRS. Most UTRS volunteers use the same UTRS account name as their Wikipedia username. Let me know if you want me to change it. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉17:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I've renamed the UTRS account to "Seraphimblade" so that's what you should use to login. Let me know if you have any issues signing in or if there is anything else I can help with. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉18:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Debresser/Jerusalem AE close
Any chance you could clarify that to permit non-substantive changes? It shouldn't affect WP:GNOME work, like fixing a punctuation error or updating a link to a page that moved. Someone cleaning up the same typo in 100 articles might not even notice that one page was under a restriction that peculiar. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid that putting something like that directly in the restriction would just result in endless bickering over whether a specific change is "substantive" or not. That article has been like that for years now. Realistically, though, if someone were doing batch minor fixes or the like, and someone were to bring that to AE to complain, it would get quickly closed with no action and possible sanctions on the filer for frivolous complaints. De minimis non curiat lex, and such. SeraphimbladeTalk to me14:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I tend to agree with the lack of neutral tone in some of the content you've deleted, but you're deleting the majority of the page and turning it into a stub entry. Can we please discuss on the talk page ways to improve the page, and remove any non-neutral tone content as opposed to mass deletion. It is hard to find a database page that is worse off based on the deletion level you just took. q (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, my mistake. :( I am kind of new with Wikipedia edits and started to provide information about this topic as it was almost empty and I know some info. Thanks for your comments in helping me to become a better editor. I will make edits to remove some of the text I added that could be interpreted as promotional or biased. I am going to add more edits to other articles too. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stvw80 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
@Notque: I'll be happy to discuss with you, but the article must not remain an ad while any such discussion takes place, since promotion isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Please ensure not to insert or reinsert promotional material going forward. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: I have not added promotional material, I have undone mass deletions to the content. I do not desire for it to be promotional, but instead to be a reasonable database article. This would be a higher quality database article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_Database which has several of the concepts which you are calling advertisement. You've again deleted a features list which is important detail in any technical article. An example would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perl - the standards you are proposing are not about advertisement, but instead about not listing technical details. I think that's fundamentally flawed. Nothing should be promotional on the page, we are agreed, but there has to be technical content to convey messaging like any other technical article. q (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Example, your edit removing excessive naming, and fluff is a good edit in my view. Deleting all the technical features is a bad edit in my view. It is not an advertisement. If you're problem with it is format, editing the content into a different format is the proper response. Not deleting it. I have no intention of edit warring, so I will not undo the deletion, but we need to come to some sort of consensus on how to include the technical detail. q (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
.svg){kind=logo}
