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.
Can you please explain how you came to a decision to close this as delete rather than no consensus? Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janel Bishop which closed today. Not only do I think a delete close for Cherise Haugen was unwarranted given the discussion, I would suggest the two results are contrary to each other. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
The concerns of WP:BLP1E were never really addressed. Also, many keep arguments focus on the fact that she won something, which is irrelevant since that's the very one event in question. A couple of keep arguments did attempt to address it, but there weren't enough to carry it. Other stuff exists is never a valid argument, so I won't speak to why someone else closed a different AfD a different way. You can ask them if you like. SeraphimbladeTalk to me14:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
It would have been good to provide an explanation - whilst I know AFD isn't a headcount it appeared you were going against the prevailing sentiment. Also, we have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Brown (2nd nomination) closed as keep today which has caused a very confusing situation. Three people notable for the exact same thing, one keep, one delete, one no consensus. Not really sure how to deal with that going forward. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
In the one you cite there, the concern was GNG rather than BLP1E. Someone did what should always be done in that instance—they went and found sources. Given that, the arguments for deletion were directly addressed and presumably refuted. One keep was rather weak, focusing on her gender which is irrelevant, but the rest directly and explicitly addressed the reason deletion was proposed. So I can easily see why that one was closed the way it was. SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I also have some issues seeing how the result could be Delete. A No consensus result would have been suitable, after I reviewed all rationale on both sides. Such rationales as per Black Kite., WP:SINGLEEVENT as a teenager, fails WP:Notability (people) and The subject won a single beauty pageant 30 years ago, can only be considered weak at very best. But that close is on you, I leave it at that.BabbaQ (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BrowseAloud (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. KTC (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi the page [Sukhi Wahiwala] was deleted however it was a draft that needed further work, but we were unable to edit it because you deleted it. Please advise on how we can build this page properly so its no deleted again whilst we are working on it, Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigfanta (talk • contribs) 15:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@Bigfanta: The page was not a draft, it was in mainspace. Draft articles will have a "Draft:" before the page title. That aside, we do not allow promotional material even in draft space. Since this will be the fourth page you have had deleted as promotional, please clarify who "we" is. If you are being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia, including being asked or expected to do so as a condition of employment, you must disclose that fact before we proceed further. Such disclosure is mandatory. SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, no, just trying to figure out how to use wiki, I personally just find it confusing. I want to do it properly and is not intended as promotional but seem to keep messing up. What do you suggest are the best pages to look at to do this properly if ok? Kind Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigfanta (talk • contribs) 17:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
So, it's full of stuff like "...British Award Winning Multi Millionaire Business Leader..." ("award winning" is almost never appropriate to use, it's marketese, and "multi millionaire" isn't shown relevant by the body), "Sukhi was born..." ("Wahiwala", not "Sukhi", we write in a formal tone, not like a "get to know ya" piece, so we refer to a person by full name on first mention and last name only on subsequent), "Sukhi attributes his near death experience to his later success and the invention of his Daily Focus Time Strategy." (Rather fluffy, did any sources cover this?). Essentially, the whole thing is an entirely unreferenced fluff piece. We write articles from reliable and independent references, and stick only to presenting in a strictly neutral tone the facts that those sources verify. "Profiles" and puff pieces are not permitted. SeraphimbladeTalk to me01:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you
Your user page made me feel better about my lowly anonymous editor status. I’ve happily confined myself to minor typo fixes and "Personal life and Death" info. I like the term deletionist. I’m not brave enough to do it on a large scale since I think deletions require a broader knowledge of wiki policies, but I have deleted death info that reads more like an obit (full of euphemisms, words like “beloved”) than a neutral wiki article. I loathe vandals, so it’s nice to know that there are those out there with the tools to deal with their shenanigans. Thanks. 72.129.236.61 (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
This regards to deletion of the above article. The article is a well sourced reflection of reliable secondary sources written in a neutral tone that conforms to how a “Biography of living persons” ought to be written. Please reinstate it. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Yogesh Khandke: I'm afraid not. The article is a collection of puff pieces by largely anonymous sources, with language such as "Uddhav Thackeray holds Bhide in high esteem.", "Narendra Modi has commented that Bhide's persona belied his greatness his sacrifices and penance", and so on. The entire thing was a fluff piece hagiography. Promotional material like that is not permitted and will not be restored. SeraphimbladeTalk to me02:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
There is no "rationale" that makes promotional writing like that acceptable. You're welcome to make another go of it, but the article needs to be kept strictly neutral in both tone and content. "Talking up" a subject is not appropriate. SeraphimbladeTalk to me03:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
You describe it as promotional, I disagree with your discription, my position is that the article is a representation of well sourced facts about the subject, written in a tone that is recommended for a BLP, so I request you to paste the article here with sources so the same can be discussed, holistically, not descrete discrete sentences, because you deleted the article, if it were about a sentence or two that had been edited out, that would have been a content dispute, with reference to those particular sentences. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Ok so it now is a dispute between the two of us, that we are not able to resolve between ourselves, will you suggest a forum where this dispute can be addressed. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
All you need to do is create the article again, minus the promotional and talking up language. It is not a "dispute". You are not permitted to create promotional articles. No one is allowed to do that. SeraphimbladeTalk to me05:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
It is your interpretation that the article on the whole is promotional. You could have edited any words or sentences in order to create a version that in your opinion complies to Wikipedia standards. You didn’t do so, you deleted the article. I requested restoration, after which anyone can edit in order the perceived violations are removed. You refuse restoration. Subsequently I also requested you to paste the text of the article here, so I may be able to present my position in this matter. You have refused that too. So there is a disagreement between us, that we aren’t able to resolve amongst ourselves. So I desire to take this matter up with others. I haven’t been involved in such disputes ever afaik so I don’t know the forum where I can take this. I could have pinged the help desk, but I desire we go forward as friendly colleagues attempting dispute resolution. So if you wish please guide me. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I am not engaging in pointless "dispute resolution" for no dispute. Promotional articles are disallowed and are deleted. Go rewrite it appropriately, without the promotion, or don't. SeraphimbladeTalk to me08:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello again, Seraphimblade. I just wanted to make sure you saw my reply here. If you think it would be most helpful and well-received, I can put together a trimmed-down version of the history information. Do you have any other ideas for how to move forward, or thoughts on the other edit requests on the article's talk page? Thanks again. Dodds_Writer (Talk · Disclosure: Employee of Teradata) 02:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.
Technical news
CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
The edit filter has a new featurecontains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.
Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.
Hi, I'm hoping to create a distinct page for Calderwood Christian School, however, it is currently blocked for creation by administrators only. I've created the page in my sandbox if you would like to check it out and instruct on any changes. I was hoping to move the article out of my sandbox. Can you please advise what to do next? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfc33 dw (talk • contribs) 00:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jfc33 dw: You must seriously think I'm stupid. Not but a few hours after I gave a final warning to your AllyCook account for spamming there, you're creating the same article on a different account. The final warning applied to all accounts, and switching to a different one (or asking someone else to do the same thing) is an attempt to evade scrutiny. If you're going to be dishonest with me, I'm inclined to just block both accounts as dead obvious sock puppets. Try again. SeraphimbladeTalk to me00:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
No, I don't think you're stupid. Ally works for Illawarra Christian Education which is the parent organisation. I work for Calderwood Christian School but am not getting paid to write this article. Originally, I read her article and it seemed promotional so I re-wrote it after looking at other educational articles. I believe this article is worthy to be on Wikipedia as there is a lot of history to this school especially in the area that it currently is and it has separated as an individual school from Illawarra Christian School. Please advise on the next course of action or if you would like proof that this isn't the same person as AllyCook. Did you read the sandbox article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfc33 dw (talk • contribs) 01:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I've submitted the draft article for creation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Calderwood_Christian_School — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfc33 dw (talk • contribs) 01:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Can I re-edit the Illawarra Christian School page as the information is out-of-date and the organisational structure (principal's) is incorrect? I would like to update the information on there so that it is accurate and in the last 10 years reflect the changes from campuses to schools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfc33 dw (talk • contribs) 00:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jfc33 dw: Same idea there. Since you have a conflict of interest, you should propose edits on the article's talk page. Once you've got the proposed edits written, place {{request edit}} on the page (without the "tl|" part if you're reading the page source here), and someone without such a conflict will evaluate it and make the edit if it's appropriate. Remember to cite reliable sources for the additions or changes you're proposing. SeraphimbladeTalk to me04:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Deletion of Raymond Neutra page
Happy Sunday. I understand your reasoning for page deletion was that the tone was promotional, and I agree that the content could have been edited to adopt a more neutral/encyclopedic tone; However, I feel that the subject warrants a page. So, I'm requesting that you userficate (if I can be so bold as to use that as a verb) the page so I can address your feedback and rework the article. Or, would you recommend I recreate the page under the Articles for Creation section?
To generally respond to the page deletion, my understanding of the wording from User:Seraphimblade/Deletion FAQ: "If an article even asserts something that might make the subject notable, it is not eligible for speedy deletion," [1] is that this article would not have been eligible for speedy deletion, as I sourced the assertion that the individual is notable because he is the son of a famous architect, whose work continued his father's legacy. So, based on that, I don't believe the page should have been speedily deleted. Secondly, I responded to your initial marking of the page for speedy deletion, and I do not see any response there.
In the end, I'm very happy and willing to work with you to edit the article to meet your expectations. Looking forward to hearing back from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsbmhca 717 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, one more thing. Wording from the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion page about G11 speedy deletion: "This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional...If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." [2] Because the subject and his work is notable, and related to notable work already described in ]]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neutra%7Canother Wikipedia article]], I'd like your help to rewrite the text with a more neutral point of view. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsbmhca 717 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jsbmcha 717: Before we proceed, please clarify if you are being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia, including if you are asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment. If any of those are true, you will need to make the required disclosures before we proceed any further. SeraphimbladeTalk to me20:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: Yes, I am being paid to create the article and edit the content. My employer/client is the subject of the intended article, and I am operating as a freelance contractor. Thank you for pointing me to the disclosure requirement; this is my first paid work in Wikipedia and I was not previously aware of it. I will be sure to comply fully with future posts. As I understand the article, that will consist of placing the connected contributor paid template at the top of the talk page associated to the articles I create. If there is something additional I should do, please instruct me further. Thanks for the help. Jsbmhca 717 (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jsbmhca 717: Thanks for that. Yes, disclosure on the talk page as you state would be one way of fulfilling that requirement, so that will work fine. As far as the article itself, it was essentially a CV rather than an encyclopedia article. We would be looking for more of a biography on them, rather than a list of their accomplishments and publications. The main thing is to use reliable and independent sources, and to stick primarily to the facts those references show to be important. Also, you should review the guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest. Generally speaking, that means that the editor with a conflict shouldn't directly be creating or editing articles in mainspace, but should instead suggest edits for editors without a conflict to review. In the case of creating an article, this would be done by creating a draft, such as at Draft:Raymond Neutra (you can just click that link to create it), and then putting the article in for review by articles for creation. That's to a new editor's advantage anyway; creating an acceptable new article straight into mainspace is one of the more difficult things to do, and the draft process will give you a chance to get feedback and work on it if it's not accepted the first time around whereas in mainspace it might simply be deleted. However, do keep in mind that ultimately, the individual's notability will have to be demonstrated in their own right, via solid coverage by reliable sources, and can't be inherited just by a relationship to some other notable topic or person. Being the child of someone notable, even if you do similar things, doesn't make one notable oneself. The availability of solid reference material determines whether we can sustain an article on a subject. SeraphimbladeTalk to me07:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I went to go update my Salad and Go article and found that it was deleted (per G11). It was my first attempt at writing a full article for Wikipedia, so I'd like the opportunity to fix it with input from an editor. Would it be possible to have that content restored somewhere so I don't have to start from scratch? And as I've seen others do before - I can confirm I'm not attached to Salad and Go in anyway, nor am I being paid. mklowcall — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mktv2000 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
@Mktv2000: It isn't the worst I've ever seen, so I've userfied it to User:Mktv2000/Salad and Go. That being said, some of the language talking up how much better it is than other places will need some toning down. I generally recommend that newer editors submit through articles for creation rather than trying to create articles directly in mainspace; it is hard to create a mainspace ready article from the very start and using AfC gives you more room to correct issues rather than having a deletion occur. SeraphimbladeTalk to me00:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
MitoQ article
Hi there. You recently deleted a page "MitoQ" for being advertorial in nature. We think that this is mostly untrue but are very willing to work within the rules and get the page back up and running with encyclopedic content only. The article was not meant to be advertising in any way. MitoQ is a well researched molecule (over 250 peer reviewed articles to date) and all of these studies are independent. We want to make sure that researchers have easy access to basic MitoQ information and are willing to work with you (if you are willing) to make sure the content is not promotional. There are many other pages for bioactive molecules/supplements/drugs which contain similar content. We have a draft of what we would like to put back up and happy to run it past you before starting if you are willing to help? Much appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willstow (talk • contribs) 01:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. Yes I am an employee of MitoQ and the person who would work on the page would also be paid by us for their time. We are happy to make full disclosure of this as per the rules.
Alright, thanks for clearing that up, and yes the disclosures will be required in that case, as specified in the link above. (Just saying so here isn't sufficient.) The individual who will be working on the article should review our guidelines on conflict of interest, especially the portions about how to submit material for review by editors without a conflict rather than directly creating or editing articles where such a conflict exists. It also won't hurt if they look at the guidelines on neutrality, general source reliability, and specifically reliability of sources for medical claims. SeraphimbladeTalk to me02:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Using guidelines for page re-write
Hi Seraphim,
The page I created: wikipedia.org/wiki/WizG , was deleted for not having enough of an encyclopedic tone. When I reposted it, my intention was to re-write the content per the guidelines, yet it was deleted again with an admin lock placed on it to protect it. How do you recommend to re-write the page and unlock it ?
@DJ Music: The article would need to be written as a draft, and then submitted to articles for creation for review. The AfC reviewer will need to be made aware of the AfD discussion, and ensure that they take it into account when they review it. If that is done and AfC approves the article, I'll remove the protection, but since you were creating another article less than a day after a deletion at AfD, it will remain until and unless that happens.
However, you will first need to determine if there is enough reliable and independent source material to support an article at all, bearing in mind that the consensus at the AfD was that the material already in the article was insufficient. Articles must be strictly neutral in both tone and content, so the positive pull quotes in the middle of sentences and stuff like "They are also known for their uplifting energy and the stories associated with their songs" and "The minimalism noted in their visuals is "the light where the music shines in"." need to go. The second is also source falsification; the reference cited doesn't actually contain that quote. I'll consider that a beginner mistake in this case, but please do be aware we take citation falsification very seriously. The cited source must actually support the text that's cited to it.
At the end of the day, you'll need more than a three-paragraph blurb in a magazine to justify an article. The rest of the references were either self-published or interviews, which are not independent sources and so don't count toward notability. If that's all the reliable and independent material there is about them, you'll need to choose a different topic to write about that has more available material. SeraphimbladeTalk to me17:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Julia Jäkel
Hi Seraphimblade! As our discussion was archived without any further comment, I've restored an old version of the Wikipedia article in my userspace from a local backup. I've immediately tagged it as a translation, and I won't publish it to the article namespace. Instead, I will be working on the article in the next weeks to make it good for AfC. I hope this is within the standards, and I'd appreciate if you'd put the draft on your watchlist to keep an eye on it. If I do anything wrong, please let me know. --UP at G+J (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Pls undelete Ramdas Padhye page
Hi,
Pls do undelete Ramdas Padhye page as he is one of the leading ventriloquists in India.The reason mentioned is unambiguous advertising.I will rewrite the content on his page or you can rewrite it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovemuppets (talk • contribs) 06:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
@Ilovemuppets: Sorry, but no. That was pure spamvertisement capped off with a massive linkspam farm, but lacking almost any kind of reliable sourcing at all. You can take another go at it if you like, but the article would need to be written neutrally and stick only to facts verified by reliable and independent sources. Also, pet peeve of mine. If you'd like me to take you seriously, do not use lulztxtspk like "pls". The word is "please". SeraphimbladeTalk to me07:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Damon Allen Jr. and Suzanne Christine Deletion
Hello.
Damon Allen Jr. is 100% notable. The content was not promotional and was written in a neutral tone.
Two pages that I created months ago have recently been deleted. The reasoning provided was for inappropriately promoting these articles, I however, was not promoting the articles. The "talking up" of the subject was not my own. These were cited quotes from secondary sources. I have read over the promotion, neutrality, and notability guidelines outlined by Wikipedia, and feel as though I followed them. My question is, does the page come across as being "promoted" of I am quoting articles that may be intended to promote? My words were not promotional in any way. I tried to make sure that I was neutral, however, I can see that if by quoting an article that is promotional, that I may be in violation. My next question is why not give me notice before deleting the articles? I would have gladly edited the articles that I worked on for several months. There was no warning, flag or notice that it was promotional until now when it was deleted without question. I do not think that they qualified for "Speedy Deletion" because they have been in place for months now. How am I receiving a "promotional content final warning" when I didn't receive an initial warning in reference to either of these articles? They have been in place for months, so I believed that I was editing appropriately. Also, there was no chance for me to contest or address the errors. Is there any way you can provide me with the text that I did have in place so that I may edit from there to meet the standards? I am an English Major due to graduate in May, and thought that Wikipedia editing would be a great skill to have, however, it is quite frustrating to have my work deleted when I tried to meet each guideline and expectation of me as an editor. Please give some guidance as to what I can do to have my work restored.
The criteria for speedy deletion states, "If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations and pages that meet specific uncontroversial criteria." You cited "WP:G11" as the reason for speedy deletion, and under this section it specifically states, "If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion."
I am asking that you give me the opportunity to edit my work and write in a more neutral fashion.
@Seraphimblade: I have not been paid to make edits as of yet, but I do intend to do so in the near future. My current additions and edits to Wikipedia are projects that I've tackled on my own terms, to gain experience.
I did review the disclosures as you advised. I understand that I have to disclose any employers or clients on my main user page, or on the talk page for the article of which I edited/created. Thank you for the direction on that. Certainly helpful information.
Well then, I gave you some other things to review as well, in regards to neutrality. And yes, you need to lose the positive pull quotes; quotes are not a means for an end run around NPOV. Instead of the quoting, just present only the facts in a strictly neutral tone. SeraphimbladeTalk to me02:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Certainly. Thank you for clarifying that for me. I also came across a Wikipedia:Training/For students page that I will explore. What do I need to do in order to gain access to the 2 deleted pages to edit the created content?? I do believe I should be given the fair opportunity of editing the pages. With your direction,my additions will be stronger and compliant with the Wiki guidelines.
As requested, I have disclosed that I am paid to edit, even though I have not yet been compensated. My clients/employers name was disclosed, even though I have not yet received any payment from this source. I also completed the Training For Students. What do I need too do in order to gain access to the 2 deleted pages to edit the created content?
Hi. Could you have a look at this when you get a chance. I didn't realise he had already been talking to you when I entered the discussion. I came into it from seeing a request to another admin and intuition moved me to investigate further. FWIW, I would also have deleted those articles. Cheers, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.
Miscellaneous
A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.
@Espresso Addict: Yes, I absolutely mind, and I object in the strongest possible terms if you unprotect that to put a spamvertisement in there once again. The "original" was created by an SPA spammer apparent even from their name, and while a few minor tweaks have been done to the draft, serious problems remain. "Bosworth's work seeks to explore subtle relations between humans and landscapes and to make a personal and spiritual connection to the world around us." "In other photographs such as Indigo Bunting she captures fleeting moments of connection between birds and humans, "incredibly intimate moment[s] of contact"[17] wherein the tiny creatures often appear "exceptionally vulnerable."[18]" (pull quotes in the middle of sentences, a common spammer technique), inappropriate inline external link in the next paragraph, "She takes her time carefully studying the landscapes, which primarily consists of forests, birds, and the people her work has crossed paths with.[23] Like other landscape photographers, Bosworth’s asserted interest is in exploring the world at her own pace and appreciating what nature puts in front of her." (glossy brochure crap), "Bosworth’s photographs connected tall, ancient tree stands with people, animals, streams that seem to flow through nature with time.", and that's just in the lead and the first couple sections. If someone thinks the article is salvageable, they need to fix that stuff first, and then consider putting it into mainspace. As it is, it would be quite appropriately G11d once again. SeraphimbladeTalk to me09:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. I believe Bosworth is possibly/probably notable, but like you had serious reservations about the current draft. It looks like someone else has done it anyway, without fixing any of the problems I noted. Sigh. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
The Progressive Episcopal Church
Good morning, I am Secretary General of The Progressive Episcopal Church. Yesterday evening I attempted to create a Wikipedia page for our denomination, and took the liberty of using several sections, slightly edited, from our denomination's website which I own and manage, as well as the domain. I had sent the OTRS team an email releasing the quoted copyrighted material for use under the recommended Creative Commons License, and was prepared later today to provide verification that I in fact own the www.tpecusa.org website and am thus entitled to "plagiarise" from my own material.
This morning I was surprised to see you had deleted the page as "advertising" which puzzles me, as I had used other Wikipedia entries for small denominations as guidance for creating TPEC's page. I respectfully request the page be restored, that I might continue with the verification process. The Progressive Episcopal Church is already listed on this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_affirming_LGBT; the Communion of which we are a member also has a wiki page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Protestant_Episcopal_Church. The page I created is not advertising, nor is it intended as such.
@Tweedfour: I did notice your OTRS claim on the talk page. If that were the only issue, I could've had someone check the OTRS ticket. But in this case, that really wouldn't matter. Wikipedia is not a place for organizations to write about themselves or to "get the word out". Rather, articles should be based on what independent and reliable sources have said about a topic. The organization's own material is not independent. Additionally, what an organization writes about itself will often be promotional, and while one can hardly blame them for that, it also means it wouldn't be appropriate to present as an encyclopedia article. Some examples of promotional language: "With a progressive vision that looks forward and outward to fringes of Christian life, while maintaining a solid respect for all forms of Christian tradition, and being grounded in the Anglican tradition, The Progressive Episcopal Church is a unique religious presence in the world.", "To maintain continuity with the heritage of the ancient Christian traditions, the Progressive Episcopal Church maintains as its foundation the historic documents of the church in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostle's Creed. It recognises and accepts, however, that God cannot be defined by human creeds; to do so would limit the believer's experience of that which is the great I AM.", stuff like that. I do see you're trying hard to follow various rules like copyright policy and paid-contributor disclosure, and that's appreciated, but our most fundamental content policies are that articles must be neutral in both tone and content, and must be primarily derived from facts verified by independent and reliable source material, not an organization or individual writing about themselves. SeraphimbladeTalk to me14:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Seraphimblade, I trust this finds you well. I am reaching out as I do not seem to understand why my article was deleted under G11.This is not the first time that I have tried to submit a page on Floriane de Saint Pierre. In the past, I have been told my administrators that the subject of my page passes the notability guideline, but that it was not written correctly. I have significantly revised the text in order to remain neutral in tone. Additionally, all of the sources used are from independent and reliable sources to prove everything that was stated. I do not have any direct interest in promoting this article. I simply attended a university lecture by this individual last year, and was surprised to find no existing articles. Since we have the same Alma Matter, and as I found her lecture so inspiring, I was motivated to create her page, but we have no direct contact. I would really appreciate knowing what part of the text was not neutral enough in either tone or content, as everything stated was backed by reliable sources. I thank you in advance for your time and reply!
Thanks for the very prompt response and thank you for the clarification.( See below ) I'm new to Wikipedia and when I discovered myself on there I did not look at conflict of interest before editing. That was indeed ignorant of me. I'm not sure how to reverse the editing that I made - though some things are incorrect, I would rather leave things as they are. I'm not particularly tech savvy. Can you tell me how get my page back to the way it was.
Thank you
Tina Cross
Hi there, I am a New Zealand singer/entertainer and I see someone has posted information about me. I'm not sure how Wikipedia works but upon discovering this information I decided to edit and correct here and there. I have noticed that much of my editing says ' citation needed'. If the information is about my career then surely I am the best person to verify my own career information In many instances, I'm unsure how to get citation. For example I was a celebrity dancer on 2008 New Zealand Dancing With The Stars. I'm unsure how to verify this other than with a newspaper article. Thank you, I look forward to hearing from you. Kind Regards Tina Cross ONZM
@Cross.sullivan: We cannot accept personal knowledge as a reference, even from an article subject, since article content must be verifiable by reliable published sources. However, a newspaper article from a reputable publication would generally be an acceptable reference. I would also strongly recommend that you read the guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest, which includes editing an article about oneself. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Carlisle Homes
Could you please undelete this article? It was speedy deleted as blatant advertising, which (as someone who I don't think has edited the article, but lives in the company's country of operation and has heard of them) in my view wasn't (also in Graham Bartlett's at WP:REFUND. They are a notable company - if people want to argue otherwise, they should nominate it at AfD so there can be an actual discussion about it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@The Drover's Wife: What references do you intend to use to write the article? Most of them there were just trivial name drops, and half the article was "awards", common with UPE (which in this case we know it was). If you've got some more substantial references in mind and plan to fix it using those, I'd certainly be willing to, but I will not as was since that would reward a UPE. SeraphimbladeTalk to me02:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I'd potentially be interested in expanding it because references aren't hard to come across, and I have zero problem with the awards section being removed. I have no idea what UPE means, but I really resent prominent Australian business topics unilaterally disappearing on the whim of some overseas user because they've never heard of them. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with having heard of them, or indeed whether the company is notable (and referring to another editor's nationality is bad form anyway, and makes me half tempted to just say no). G11 means that the article is advertising, it has nothing to do with notability. In this case, the article was a brief "profile" or "about us" with half of it being awards, with reference bombing of generally trivial mentions. UPE means undisclosed paid editor, and in this case we know the article was written by an undisclosed paid editing ring. So, if an established editor is willing to work on the article and has sources to hand, I'm certainly happy to restore it for that purpose, but if those name drops are all that's available, restoring it would serve the UPE's purpose of "getting the copy up". Since you've said the references are easy to find, let me know what you've found and then I'll restore it. SeraphimbladeTalk to me03:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Topic ban clarification
An editor is making bad edits to the Peter Strzok page. I was going to take it to the talk page of the article but it seems pointless given the track record of the editor and the fact that the editor appears to have been topic-banned from US politics (?)[3]. Could you clarify whether the editor is topic banned or not? Can the editor's bad edits be reverted? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.
Technical news
AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.
Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.
Deleted Draft: Accolade (health and benefits company)
Hi, my draft was flagged as promotional and deleted. I will attempt to revise so that it does not sound promotional, as this was not the intention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cguarino13 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Deleted Draft: Burberry Digital Marketing Strategy
Hi, I am a student and i am doing a project for my digital marketing coursework. My teacher will mark my work. Could you please recover my work on the wiki? Thanks a lot !!!!
The following is my original work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penny Pu (talk • contribs)
@Penny Pu: I checked and do not see that you have any deleted contributions. I'm not sure what you're referring to. Regardless, what you've put here is unacceptably promotional. If that were put in as an article, I would delete it as advertising. Wikipedia does not permit marketing or promotion. SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I just wanted to check on whether you'd still be interested in doing copyediting for the Signpost. If yes, we're currently getting into the phase were articles for the next issue are in need of copyediting, so I could hook you up with some material to look through. I'd also be grateful if you could record any things that were unclear to you about the style of articles, since I'm currently getting together a Manual of Style for the Signpost. Whaddaya say? Zarasophos (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, we represent the artists Huguette Caland, and have been working on her Wikipedia for several weeks now. Could you kindly recover the edits on the page?
Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lpuymartin (talk • contribs) 16:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@Lpuymartin: Firstly, if by "represent" you mean that you are being paid or compensated to edit the page, or are expected to do so as a duty of employment, you need to follow our rules for paid editors, which you have not to date. You must make the mandatory disclosures prior to editing any further on the subject, including to discuss it. Additionally, you would need to follow our conflict of interest practices, which would include not editing the page directly, but instead suggesting edits for an editor without a COI to review. The material will not be "recovered" as it is promotional, and we do not permit promotional material. SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: We are not getting paid for this. So how would you define what is history and what is promotional then? We are adding sources to our facts, and trying to make it as legit as possible. Please advise us how to proceed.
Then it's awfully hard for me to comprehend what "we" or "represent" here is. Regardless, if you're acting on behalf of someone, you're still COI and should follow the same process. Suggest edits on the article talk page. Ensure that they are backed by reliable sources (not later, when made), and stick to facts, not purple brochure stuff ("Caland was born into an important political Lebanese family", "important" is superfluous fluff, "Caland dedicated four years of her life to caring for her ailing father...", "spent four years" would do fine, "...his death ignited in her a desire for a new challenge", more fluff), as just a small sample of the inappropriate stuff in it. Stick to facts, not personal knowledge, impressions, or opinions. Don't adorn them with unneeded adjectives or purple phrasing ("important", "dedicated", "ignited in her"), just state them plainly. And make sure those facts accurately represent what the sources say, and do not expand on or interpret from them, from personal knowledge or inference. We don't editorialize. SeraphimbladeTalk to me01:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Do you have tips?
Hi I just checked out your profile and it appears that you know what you're doing, so do you have any tips for uploading sections? I tried to upload two but they were deleted as it was seen as ads. Is it perhaps something about the language used?
I understand if you don't have time but would appreciate it if you do :)The main problem is that the sources are in Danish...
=
CanopyLAB is an edTech company based in Copenhagen, Denmark.
@Agnesamanda1: Since these were promotional, first please clarify if you are or expect to be paid or compensated for editing these articles, including being asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment or internship. If so, you will need to make the required disclosures before we proceed. SeraphimbladeTalk to me14:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@Eastmain: The article consisted of a short "about us" blurb, a massive product list, and not much else. It was at least free of the "TM" symbols when first created, but the structure was pretty much the same, and it is of course telling that an IP was shortly along to add them. That's the same type of "copy" brochure spam that's routinely seen. It is not necessary for an article to actually say "BUY OUR CRAP TODAY!" to be spam. SeraphimbladeTalk to me20:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
thanks for the advice
All the work that i create are not paid work and i understand the promotional part of it n will try not to repeat that again... will follow your advice and redo those pages using draft and allow other editors to look at it..Army (talk) 13:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
It was clearly an attempt to "get the copy up", complete with listing a fake Nobel prize ("Noble laureate", cute) at the end. And I'd be awfully interested to know who you are, you've been making a lot of questionable edits and it reminds me of someone, though I can't put my finger on it. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
What question of yours? If it's about my identity, then that's really none of you business and certainly nothing that Wikipedia policy suggests that I reveal, but I don't mind saying that my name is Phil, I'm in my sixties, retired and a part time post-graduate student, and you can find out where I live by doing a Geolocate on my IP address. Who are you? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Please just stop this failure to assume good faith and start behaving in the way that an administrator and former arbitrator should. This article was no more an attempt to "get the copy up" than any other article created on Wikipedia, and made absolutely no claim that the subject was a Nobel laureate, but simply listed the sourced claim that she was Karmaveer Noble laureate, something completely different. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Alright, if you don't want to say, can't make you. Do be aware you'll need to use your primary account going forward to participate in deletion discussions. It's not entirely forbidden to log out to edit or use an alternate account, but such practices are not permitted in project-space discussions. I will indeed assume good faith and presume you did not know that, rather than that you were deliberately avoiding scrutiny. SeraphimbladeTalk to me20:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Do you still not get it? I don't have a primary account, and all of my edits in the last few years have been made without logging in. You are still not assuming good faith - I know full well what Wikipedia's policies are on sockpuppetry and have come nowhere near violating them, have not avoided scrutiny whether deliberately or not, and will continue to participate in project-space discussions. You are the one who has violated policy on several counts in this discussion, not least in your refusal to substantiate the claim that I have "been making a lot of questionable edits" unless I out myself. Please put up or shut up. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rekha Surya. 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. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Retrieve deleted article
Hi Seraphimblade
The article about an Egyptian actor and a lot of sources talk about him and his work Usama Tolba And achieves remarkable
Störm That one's at least not a spamvertisement, but it will need additional references to demonstrate notability. In the future, if a page is salted, any proposed replacement should be created as a draft rather than evading the salting by using a different title. SeraphimbladeTalk to me17:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.
Arbitration
A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.
Paswara Papers Limited (PPL) is a PASWARA GROUP Company based in India and engaged in manufacturing of Multi Layer Kraft Paper & Paper Board since 1984 having two separate manufacturing lines and presently producing Multi Layer Kraft Paper & Paper Board to cater the Specialty Paper Market in India, China, Dubai, Sri Lanka, Vietnam and other countries. Now the company has established a Greenfield Mega Project, to manufacture 500 Tons Per Day Multi Layer Kraft Paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deept30 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Alec Stevens
You have removed a lot of information from the Alec Stevens page. For example, he has taught at the Kubert School since 1992. That is notable. Why remove it? Why not visit www.kubertschool.edu, see his bio, and footnote it? Furthermore, you have removed the cover art for his Sadhu Sundar Singh graphic novel, and all references to his Calvary Comics imprint which has been ongoing for the past 18 years. Furthermore, all references to his music career have been deleted. Examples for footnoting can be provided for all of this. If you do not wish to engage in it, another editor can be solicited for help. Regards, Chrisart7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisart7 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
If you can reference that, I think that would be fine. Though we'd need to leave out the bit about how great his students have done, unless that can be referenced as well. SeraphimbladeTalk to me18:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I won't revert the article again, but I will have a wiki editor, either yourself or another, help me with footnoting and the like. I don't have much free time for this sort of thing, but was surprised to see so much information disappear so fast! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisart7 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Jessica McKenna
Hello, I see that you deleted the article for Jessica McKenna today. The content of the article was neutral and only stated some personal details and her citable television roles. I had included on the talk page that I intended to improve the article, and I would be fine with it moving to a draft space. Can you clarify how you found the article to be promotional and warranting a g11 speedy deletion? My intention is to restore the article and improve it. I am not Jessica McKenna, nor do I know her in any way. I did make my edits in the last few hours, so maybe your deletion was already in process before I changed things? †Basilosauridae❯❯❯ (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
@Basilosauridae: The article was just a "list of credits" type bit based on non-reliable sources, the same as the "profile" type spam we get in all the time. If you've got better references, feel free to write an appropriate article based on those good quality references. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. I’m assuming you mean the UCBcomedy website is considered to you to be unreliable, as I was under the impression that IMDB is an acceptable citation for someone’s credits? I understand that there were issues with the article, but I fail to see how it qualified for a G11 speedy deletion and feel it should have been re-proposed for deletion or moved to a draft space, especially since there was recent interest and recent work put towards fixing it. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯ (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Once again, it was profile spam, which is a form of advertising. I strongly dislike repeating myself. If you would like to take another go, it's not salted, by all means do. SeraphimbladeTalk to me22:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I’m not trying to fight with you, I’m trying to get clarity for the future and also suggest a more collaborative way to deal with these issues. I totally understand deleting the article based on dormant content, but given that work was being done at that very moment, as evidenced by the revision history and talk page, discussion would be more helpful than deleting in-progress improvement efforts. I will work on a properly cited article in a draft space. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯ (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Bit8
Have noticed that you deleted the new article about Bit8 citing excessive promotional material - did not do so advertently - will rewrite the article and re-upload today. Can you comment or suggest edits to the new version if you think it still has an excessive promotional slant - this is not what is being intended, as Bit8 is one of the most well known supplier companies in the online gambling industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maltalinks (talk • contribs) 08:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: I have added a statement in my talk page as suggested by EdwardX. I am not being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia. Have not been active for many years so am a bit rusty, guess I will make a brief user page as I never had it in the past.MaltalinksTalk to me13:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughts
Hello, I just wanted to say thanks for writing such detail on your user page. This has given me a better understanding and some good thoughts to consider. In particular, you say:
"I believe that it is important for editors to give a general overview of personal viewpoints, so that others can call out if the editor is exhibiting unconscious bias"
That is a very interesting point. It makes me consider whether I should do the same. I prefer to be a very private person, so I do not normally post personal details. However, I believe fighting unconscious bias is important. I will give this some thought.
It is also interesting that you say: "Without deletion of unverifiable content, there is really no need for administrators whatsoever".
I agree that "culling is an art", and I believe removing text is often key to improvement. But I had considered myself an inclusionist. Perhaps it feels different when thinking about it as "removing a bunch of hard work" vs "remove things that don't belong, and reverting the deletion is fast and easy".
Hi, thanks for edits. Unfortunately you deleted about 17 sources and over 2 paragraph of facts. Which I will rewrite an improve on because they are indeed notable facts. I really wish you had just flagged them so other users on the watch list and I can fix it. But I understand your point of view and respect it. Would you be able to switch this page to the second stage of Wikipedia? So it will appear in search engines? Since the current information is correct? [[User ohare415|Ohare415] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohare415 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
@Ohare415: Okay, we've now got two people asking about search engine indexing for that article, which is very much raising my antennae along with the promotion. Could you please clarify if you're being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia, including being asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment or internship? If you are, that's allowed, but you'd need to make the required disclosures and abide by the conflict of interest requirements. SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: NO I just love her so muc. LOLI guess you could say I'm a fan girl. Sorry, but this isn't paid. I just don't understand wiki fully and need help. Can you please answer the question so I can learn how to do this. I worked so hard on this wiki page and I would like to be able to complete my work. I came here for help. Ohare415 (talk
I didn't mean to promote her. I found facts. Like she did use diversity in her line which is stated in 3 sources. Obviously I need to rewrite and tahnked you for. I am hoping instead you will be kind enough to help me.
I also stepped in on the article, to remove content. What upset me the most was that content in quotation marks was in no way an accurate copy of what was in the citation. I also removed text and references about selection of models for a runway show, because, really, unless the models have their own Wikipedia articles, not useful information. I removed text where the references did not support, and posted a note in Ohare415 Talk that an interview with the subject of the article is not acceptable. Ohare415 persistent in putting stuff back. I am going away, because I have better things to do. David notMD (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
[[Hi Sir its Micheal from MPSE (Motion pitures Sound Editors ) he worked for us lot of the movies as freelance and most server connected through team viewer and getting to studio helping us worked for film in hollywood and nation geographic channel , Tv season shows too , his really talented he works on to Biggest sound edtitors Guild ( ADR , Foley , SOund design ) Recroding Session ) Film SCoring ) in US and Uk of our branches and in NYC because as u let me knew have less records on to ur profile u had done big stuff working with warner bros sound , pinewood studios , sony pitures sound , skywalker sound , lipsync , sound dogs , etc but he had worked greatest short films and tv shows academy awards nominated person plus this time EMMY openings and he was nominated too and now am looking to post the same deleted biography which was previously deleted praneeth Rao]]
[[This was done by MPSE studio , Micheal not by himself we had to post his profile for the which he had done a great stuffs for us and for the team because previously i had a control of this account to help other taking articles so went with his name. my bad sorry .]]
--PraneAdword (talk) 11:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)Micheal--PraneAdword (talk) 11:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by PraneAdword (talk • contribs)
This is a legitimate business, why did you G11 the article? 1, They have a contract with Tottenham Hotspur!, Govvy (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Govvy: If you think you can write an appropriate article for it, have at it. I don't really care about whatever "Tottenham Hotspur" might be. The article will need to appropriately cite multiple reliable third-party references that cover the subject (not things related to the subject, the subject itself only) in depth. "Profiles" are advertisements and are subject to G11, as occurred here, since Wikipedia is not a directory of businesses or anything else. Only notable businesses should have articles. If the business is notable, make an article that cites sources showing that. SeraphimbladeTalk to me18:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
No, it was profile spam, which is deleted. If you think you can write an appropriate article about the company, including appropriate references, it's not salted, so go for it. I do not ever restore advertisements. SeraphimbladeTalk to me18:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
Miscellaneous
Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Hi, my name is MX and I'm reaching out to you regarding the deletion of Eugenio Minvielle Lagos in February 2018. Was there a discussion I can go back to see what editors' opinions were on the article? I helped rescue this article from deletion from a new editor back in 2017 and helped promote it to DYK. There were multiple, independent sources about this person's tenure at the companies he worked at, including a legal case he was involved in that I thought should be included despite the creator's initial pushback (probably because of her COI). See my comments in this DYK nomination page regarding the problems we addressed. Anyways, I just thought the article was fine for Wikipedia. Would love your two cents on this if you have a chance. Cheers, MX (✉ • ✎) 20:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@MX: Looks like it didn't stay very saved for very long, as it was deleted at AfD in July 2017 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugenio Minvielle Lagos). The concern was promotional tone and content; essentially that the "article" was instead a "bio" or CV, which are promotional. After that, you created it a second time not long after the AfD, with the same issues (CV-style content), and it was again deleted as promotional. We do not permit that type of content on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia may never promote anyone or anything, and all articles must be strictly neutral. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I requested its deletion in July 2017 (my username was ComputerJA) because I didn't think at that time that the article was suitable for Wikipedia. The creator of the article reached me directly and asked for feedback. She created a draft where we slowly worked our way to creating an article. Personally, I thought the article was not promotional in nature / was neutral by the time it made it to DYK (since it included information about a lawsuit during his tenure in Mexico and detailed information about his business strategies in his posts in Latin America, which meant it wasn't focused on putting him on a positive light all the time and went beyond being just a CV). Either way, I would have appreciated a community discussion of some sort, just so I could better understand how others' opinions vary. Not sure what options are left at this point... Cheers, MX (✉ • ✎) 22:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, it's not the worst I've ever seen. I usually don't offer it for G11s, but you don't seem a spammer type, so if you'd like I'd be willing to userfy it. SeraphimbladeTalk to me22:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, very kind of you. That would be great. And please feel free to open up a deletion discussion if you'd like. I have a lot of learning to do outside of my usual scope of work, and would be happy to learn more from other users on what's promotional / not promotional. Cheers, MX (✉ • ✎) 22:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Can you clarify why the Wish Farms page was deleted? I understand and have read the guidelines and do not see how our page violates them. In the past, our Wikipedia page has been very helpful in answering basic facts and history that consumers nationwide have about Wish Farms. It had not been updated since 2011 and we felt it was necessary to give the most up to date information. This is not for our promotional use, but rather to be a resource for those who would like to know about the history of our 96 year old company. Some of the links that had been used as reference are out of date now. We were hoping to update all of them in the spirit of Wikipedia's mission. I personally rely on Wikipedia on a daily basis and feel shocked and hurt by this decision. We respectfully ask that you reconsider this deletion and let us know what we can do properly update our company's page.
The page was promotional throughout its history. That's often the case when those with a conflict of interest are involved with creation of an article, as it is nearly impossible to remain neutral on a subject one has an interest in promoting. That's why COI editors are encouraged (and paid editors required) to suggest edits on an article's talk page rather than making them directly. The article should have been deleted from its first iteration in 2009 ("The Wishnatzki Family has been delivering quality produce to consumers since 1922. It all started with Harris Wishnatzki selling fresh fruits and vegetables from a push cart in New York City. He expanded the enterprise by wholesaling produce to another push cart merchants--and it didn't stop there." are the first few lines, and it carries on and on with that type of fluffy garbage). Also, it is required that editors being paid to edit Wikipedia (including if asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment or internship) make certain disclosures, which has clearly not been happening in this case. So, really, this should have been handled around a decade ago, but we didn't have the same tools at that time for detecting inappropriate articles that we do coming up ten years later. Wikipedia does not permit promotion, including PR-style "talking up", and is not the appropriate place for an "About us" page. SeraphimbladeTalk to me20:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
We understand your point about some parts being "fluffy" in the page written ten years ago, but that was not the intention and is exactly why we began re-editing it today. We would like the opportunity to edit our original page, rather than starting over. We are eager to make changes to meet Wikipedia's guidelines now that we are aware of the perceived slant and are more than capable of making the page strictly factual.
Alright, let's look at the page today. "In 1900, Harris Wishnatzki immigrated from Russia to New York City and began selling fruits and vegetables from a pushcart where he met fellow pushcart peddler, Daniel Nathel. Over the next 22 years, Wishnatzki and Nathel both grew their businesses to large pushcart fleets, selling produce on the streets in New York City. In 1922, they decided to join forces – and from this, the business, Wishnatzki & Nathel was born." Unreferenced, purple prose "about us" junk. "In Florida, Wishnatzki envisioned bringing fresh strawberries to fruit-deprived consumers in the northern states during the winter months. Challenges with transporting perishable goods were eventually overcome and the company's New York City hub began distributing fresh fruit. Thanks to Wishnatzki, Plant City growers gained access to large American markets." "Fruit-deprived consumers" indeed, and the "thanks to" garbage could certainly be left out. At least that has a reference, though it seems unavailable. Oh, and on the subject of references, the first reference there is a snuck-in one to "reference" who the CEO is. It does not, in fact, even mention the CEO, but is the organization's "contact us" page.
So, sorry, but what I'm seeing here, with the many accounts used, the immediate jumping on it, and at least one deceptive reference, is aggressive, deliberate spamming. I absolutely will not assist with that, including by undeleting the article. SeraphimbladeTalk to me01:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.
Technical news
The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on the second set of wireframes for the Special:Block redesign that will introduce partial blocks. The new functionality will allow you to block a user from editing a specific set of pages, pages in a category, a namespace, and for specific actions such as moving pages and uploading files.
A summary deletion with no discussion? This was not, I think, appropriate. There are a number of organizations under the People's Vote umbrella, and Scientists for EU is one of them. Others are Our Future Our Choice,
Open Britain, European Movement UK The article was new, but to call it "blatent advertising" with no discussion is inappropriate. Over here (in the UK) it is certainly a notable organization, working in the area of a significant social and political issue; there's 132 mentions of it on the Wikipedia already. We intend to restore the article. It is most regrettable that you did not allow it to go to AfD so at least people could have taken a copy of it and there could have been discussion about it. I appreciate that you may have acted as deletionist here in good faith, but in this case you were misguided. -- Evertype·✆09:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Evertype, recreating it is fine. However, it will need to be more than a reference-bombed "About Us" page. Wikipedia isn't the appropriate place to "get the word out". It has nothing to do with notability (though that will need more than name drops, some references will be necessary that are substantially or entirely about the organization, not just a mention in passing, and about them by independent sources, not by them; the article is not a showcase for stuff they wrote). Also, the massive repetition of "Dr(s)." will need to go, don't use titles. Refer to an individual by full name (only) on first mention and last name (only) thereafter. If you can recreate it appropriately, that is fine. SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Uninvolved Comment Just slightly puzzled by the reference to the plural 'we' in the closing sentences. "We intend to restore the article"..Irondome (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Lisacarolinamartinez, I did see your request and will take a look. I'll have to refresh my memory as that was some time ago. That said, please do not revert a discussion page to continue an old discussion, as you remove material from other editors when you do that. Linking to the previous conversation in the page archives is sufficient and doesn't disrupt other threads. SeraphimbladeTalk to me13:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Lisacarolinamartinez, I'm not sure how you believe the other editor "violated your copyright". I just want to make sure you understand that any material you write on Wikipedia will be released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, meaning anyone at all can copy it anywhere and for any purpose as long as they follow the license terms (attributing the material and not changing the license). Is that something you're alright with? SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, thank you once again for continuing this dialogue. Yes, as a former Wikimedian, I am aware of the Creative Commons Attribution. Another, more prolific and experienced contributor pointed out that Heroeswithmetaphors violated my copyright when the entire article was copied over. This was during an earlier iteration over a year ago. I was just pointing out that I've had a few challenges throughout this process. Again, I would appreciate it if you could please restore the aformentioned articles, so that I may resume working on them. --Lisacarolinamartinez (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Seraphimblade Hi, I would like to access a content of the deleted article Yogi Matsyendranath for userfication, really appreciate your help in making that possible! Also I will appreciate a great deal your personal deletion review. As I plan to work on the article to improve it (I believe the subject is notable and the article in general is appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia), your suggestions could greatly contribute to making the article suitable for Wikipedia. Thank you so much! Please notify me on your response on my talk page. --Viratinath (talk) 05:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
@Viratinath: Before we proceed, since the article was promotional, please answer if you are being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia, including being asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment. If so, there are some required disclosures you'll need to make before we proceed further. SeraphimbladeTalk to me18:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Seraphimblade I am not paid or compensated in any way for making that article - I am doing it as an altruistic action and it was my personal initiative. In fact, it was never my goal to make that article promotional, I believe that could be corrected. --Viratinath (talk) 07:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up then. As far as the article, I won't restore it, it's entirely unsalvageable. It's full of unreferenced junk like "...his mundane name is Maxim Matsiendranatkh" (we wouldn't use "mundane name", "born Maxim Matsiendranatkh" will quite suffice"), "In Russia, he is known as the first of the Russians who has been ever initiated in the Nath tradition." ("Known" by whom, according to whom?) "The principal spiritual Master (mula-guru) of Yogi Matsyendranath Maharaj in the Nath lineage is Yogi Shri Mithileshnath Maharaj, the head of the Patan Devi Mandir (Tulsipur, Uttar Pradesh)." (According to whom?) "Yogi Matsyendranath was completely trained in Nath Sampradaya in India, he has been ordained to be a Guru and attorned the authority to initiate adepts into the Tradition." (Don't keep adding "Yogi" to his name, after first reference, he should be referred to only as "Matsyendranath". And again, "completely trained" and "ordained to be a guru" according to whom?). "He is one of the promoters of the Nath Tradition since 2004 up to the present and still continues making a significant contribution into development of the Tradition." (Once again, significant according to whom?) The whole thing is full of largely unreferenced fluff like that. Articles should be based upon reliable and independent sources, and stick only to neutrally presenting facts that those references verify. It is expected that if you create articles directly in mainspace, those articles will be appropriate. Since you seem to lack the necessary experience to do that, I strongly advise you create any future articles as a draft and request review by articles for creation. Repeated creation of promotional articles is grounds for a block, and this is not the first time an article of yours required deletion for that reason. Before you create any more articles, please carefully review and ensure you understand the guidelines I linked to above, as well as the requirements for notability. SeraphimbladeTalk to me18:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Writing an Conflict of Interest Article
Hi Seraphimblade,
I am an intern at a company called InteDashboard which manages the features of Team-Based Learning (a different teaching methodology) and I wish to write an Wikipedia article on the software.
However I am aware that I bear a conflict of interest. I am a new user of Wikipedia, and am a little overwhelmed on the numerous policies and guidelines in WP:COI. Additionally, I question whether I am able to source the company's website for describing the features of the software, as only a handful of third-party dependable sources describe any features. Would there also be any tips or general overview to get started on Wikipedia?
@Yen31435: First, thanks for recognizing that you'll need to account for the conflict of interest and doing that ahead of time. It is a lot of advice, and reading the details isn't a bad idea, but it boils down to a few main points. First, someone with a COI should not create or edit an article directly in mainspace (the actual encyclopedia). Creation of an article should be done as a draft and submitted to articles for creation for review, while edits to an existing article should be suggested on the article's talk page, then marked by placing {{request edit}} on the article talk page to flag it as needing review. Second, you will need to make the required disclosures for compensated contributors, as described here. (You don't really need to disclose more information than you've told me, but the link gives specific ways the disclosure should be made clearly visible. You don't have to disclose your own identity if you don't want to.) That's true even if your internship is unpaid; in that case, your compensation is the experience and knowledge you're gaining from the process, but interns are still considered compensated editors and still must disclose. And all editors are required to stick to the requirements of neutrality and verifiability.
That aside, you may want to think carefully about whether attempting to create an article will even work. The notability requirements outline what's required, but that boils down to that there must exist enough reliable and independent source material to write a complete article. That doesn't mean blurbs or name drops in material about something else, it means reliable source material that substantially, directly, and in reasonable depth covers the article subject. If that type and quantity of source material about the company doesn't exist, you would, quite frankly, be wasting your time by trying to create such an article, because the software not an appropriate subject for an article yet. Most companies and products are not appropriate article subjects. So before you even start down the road of trying to create an article, I would advise you to see what type of source material is available, and think if trying to create an article is even worth spending your time on to begin with. Additionally, you'll still need to stay neutral and follow the sources. If no other independent and reliable source saw fit to cover some feature, it's probably really not important enough to mention in the article either. Wikipedia articles are not meant to be exhaustive feature lists. Self-published sources like a company's own website are usable on a limited basis in certain cases, but should be used sparingly. The bulk of article material should be referenced to reliable, independent sources. SeraphimbladeTalk to me13:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
User creating the same article
Hi, can you please block the user whilo is constantly creating the article Suma Salt? The article has been deleted numerous times.
Thanks
Knightrises10 (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
@Knightrises10: First, I already did, because they had already been repeatedly warned. You might pay attention next time. Ending your communication with "thanks" is presumptuous and rude, because it presumes that the person you're talking to will do what you want. SeraphimbladeTalk to me15:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello Seraphimblade, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coperix (talk • contribs) 21:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
neither Unambiguous advertising /promotion I am not a paid editor. If you've suggestions to improve the page i am open to correct it. I think there's an error of appreciation because Global Africa Art Market report is publicly known. And i don't see the advertising side of the page. Yes the annual report is "the first of its kind in the history of modern Africa"there's no doubt on it. I suggest to make your own research. Speaking/reading about modern and contemporary african art market is a crucial matter. If you browse most of articles on arts in Africa you can notice the lack of subject on market including solid data/analysis. All the best, Coperix — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coperix (talk • contribs) 19:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
@Coperix: The "article" was just a laundry list of contributors, and even totally inappropriately referred to them as "key art world players" in a header. The article was also reference bombed, with most sources cited not even mentioning the organization, and the others just name dropping it. So, my suggestions are to see if you can find reliable and independent sources that are substantially or entirely about the organization. If you can find a good quantity of such reference material, you can improve the article by avoiding the laundry list of contributors, writing in a strictly neutral tone, and sticking only to facts those sources verify. If all you can find are the types of references used before, just name drops, the article would be "improved" by refraining from writing it altogether. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Global Africa Art Market Report
Hello Seraphimblade,
Thank you for your assistance.
I've submitted a new draft which i would like you to review.
Kindly
Coperix
It already has been, and to be entirely honest, I wonder if you read a single word I wrote. I told you to make sure to find better sources, so you submitted a draft with no sources at all? Sources aren't optional. SeraphimbladeTalk to me23:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello talk:Seraphimblade,
please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below.
13:40, 31 August 2018 Seraphimblade (talk | contribs) deleted page Fibre2Fashion (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (thank)
Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.
Technical news
Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.
I contested the deletion of Ontario Horticultural Association at Talk:Ontario Horticultural Association, requesting input from the nominator. You either didn't bother checking, or ignored the talk page discussion, or felt it was unreasonable. Could you please state which? Moreover, after posting the message, I was in the process of adding references to the article. Did you read any portion of the article or talk page, and if so, can you please identify the contentious advertising material for me? To be given only a few minutes to update the article between notification and deletion is ludicrous.
In the meantime, please restore the article so I can update it. As an admin, I could easily do this myself, but I don't like overriding other admin actions. Mindmatrix17:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
@Mindmatrix: The article was a bit of "about us" stuff, and then what looks to be uncritically regurgitated "mission" type stuff. That's the G11 portion. For A7, it does not in any way assert notability, nor cite a single source other than the organization's own website. Speedy deletions are speedy, and while I read the comment on the talk page, the article still was in a condition that met both criteria. If you'd like, I'll restore it as a draft to work on, but it needs to assert notability, and be referenced primarily from third party sources rather than recite the organization's own self-congratulatory material, prior to being returned to mainspace. Given your experience, I would, to be quite honest, expect you to already know these things. SeraphimbladeTalk to me17:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I did state "I was in the process of adding references"; I'm not sure why you assume that these would not be third-party sources, since my editing history demonstrates I add reliable sources and remove fluff. Anyway, if you prefer, restore article revisions to User:Mindmatrix/Skunkworks/Ontario Horticultural Association for me to update it. Should I move it back into mainspace once I'm done, or should I have someone review it beforehand? (If so, who?) Mindmatrix17:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
As I am new to Wikapedia please can you explain why the 2 pages I created one is classed as advertising. (Peter Lorimer) Ewan Venters runs a shop so he is also advertising and promoting Fortnum Mason. Richard Branson, Michael Rapino, Live Nation lots of people are promoting and advertising what makes Peter Lorimer a presenter on Netflix any different. His Co presenter has a Wikipedia page though. I am only asking and don’t want to upset anyone. All the people i mentioned are commercial people making money so why can they have a Wikipedia page? I watched Peters programme on Netflix and it’s very goodBusinessExpert99 (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
No problem and many thanks for explaining. Hopefully Someone can write the page correctly
@BusinessExpert99: Firstly, as you have been aggressively attempting to create an inappropriately promotional article, please clarify whether you are being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia, including being asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment or internship. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 21:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)No I can assure you I am not being paid by anyone to write any Wikipedia page. I just watched Mr Lorimer’s new series on Netflix and enjoyed it and thought he was an excellent presenter, then I googled him. Can I ask why would anyone pay me to write a Wikipedia page? I would be surprised if anyone got paid to write a page but as stated I am new to Wikipedia. I know in this modern world it’s a shock when a person does something for free so maybe I am just being stupid to spend my time writing any article. I know it’s not that well written but that’s not really one of my best skillsBusinessExpert99 (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I see you have deleted the page again and I personally cannot see any advertising on the new page. I personally will not be writing the page again or creating any other Wikipedia pages I will leave that to the experts plus I don’t have much time to waste. You already have a page for his Netflix series so not sure Peter really needs his own page. Please could you do me a favour and delete all the pages I created as I don’t know how to do that myselfBusinessExpert99 (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I have managed to delete one of the Wikipedia page content I created and would appreciate if you can help me and delete all the others including the draft pages. Thank you for your help in advanceBusinessExpert99 (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
@BusinessExpert99: Yeah, it's a problem that people do that, but thanks for clarifying it. Since you're not, there were several problems. First, the page was inappropriately titled, a biography on a person should be titled with just their name. Secondly, the article was very far from neutral, and was promotional. That doesn't just mean "advertising" in the "buy our stuff now!" sense, but also by taking a positive tone or talking someone up. In this case, the article did things like "quickly carved out a career for himself" ("worked as" will quite suffice), "...in-demand remixer and producer" ("in-demand" is unneeded fluff), "...where he earned the prestigious distinction..." (again, "prestigious" is unneeded fluff), "Never one to rest on his laurels..." (leave that out, just stick to the facts), "Where he and his team of hand picked agents cater to a discerning clientele, many of whom are extremely well known individuals with creative tastes, but wish to remain fiercely private." (Then that's unverifiable, don't put it in.), "...realized a tremendous need to assemble a S.W.A.T. team..." (it is not a SWAT team, it is just a team), and on and on with all that unneeded embellishment. Just stick to presenting facts that reliable sources verify. Don't talk the subject up. Don't use flourishes like "SWAT team" unless you are actually describing a SWAT team. Stick to the facts and present them in a completely neutral tone. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh, for one final issue on naming, that was inappropriately done as well. We use a formal tone, so he should on first reference be referred to by full name, and thereafter as "Lorimer", not "Pete". SeraphimbladeTalk to me 21:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)No problem and many thanks for explaining. Hopefully Someone can write the page correctly. I personally just don’t have the spare time to keep working on it so it meets with your approval. I only had the time as it’s Sunday to even create itBusinessExpert99 (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC)just for the record from what I just looked at the latest version did not have the detail you highlighted like SWAT team etc or any promotional mention of his business. I had already removed all that stuff as far as I am aware and the latest page was very basic with no advertising is was more about his music careerBusinessExpert99 (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Universal Coin & Bullion
Hi, you recently deleted a page I created (Universal Coin & Bullion). It was deleted for promotion, which makes no sense to me, as all articles I create/edit are encyclopedic, complete with valid references and sources to substantiate all content, and meet Wikipedia's notability.
If you feel there was any promotional content, please point me to it so I can address the issue, but I don't feel like the page should have been deleted. Thank you.
@Jbaysinger: Alright, well let's be frank. You previously told someone that you are not being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia. The frank part of it is that I don't believe you. In addition to the fact that you've written exclusively about subjects there would be commercial interest in, you wrote, for example, an article on Candace M. Smith that is also somewhat promotional, but not quite enough to delete. In that article, however, there is File:Candace M Smith4.jpg, a photo you uploaded, with the source as "own work", meaning that you took the clearly posed photograph very shortly before the article was created. So please consider your answer carefully: Are you being paid or compensated in any way, including indirectly, including being asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment or internship, to edit Wikipedia? SeraphimbladeTalk to me23:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
No, as previously stated, I do not receive compensation for my edits. I do sometimes contact the subjects, or people directly and indirectly related to the subjects that I write about.
You alluded to the file on Candace Smith's page as an example. I never stated I created that file, only that I own the rights to the file, which I do. The rights to the photo were passed on to me by the copyright holder.
I'm a technical writer. I'm basically working all day, and I edit Wikipedia when I have time, which is not often.
In my line of work, I frequently come in contact with people who give me ideas for Wikipedia pages/edits. Other times I browse existing Wiki pages looking for content that needs to be revised.
Alright, then you're telling me you've been dishonest in a different way. "Own work", in the context of a photograph, means that you took the photo. Never anything else. If someone else wants to release the rights, they need to follow the process to donate a copyrighted work and be listed as the author, not you shortcut it by making a fake claim of authorship. Given that you've already admitted to being dishonest once, I'm sorry, but I'm not really inclined to listen further. Please conduct yourself with complete honesty in the future. I'll list the image for deletion as appropriate since it has a false source and authorship. SeraphimbladeTalk to me01:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
AE case timelines
Hi Seraphimblade. Sorry to pick on you since you've both closed AE's related to GMOs and were an arb in the original GMO ArbCom, but I was wondering if I could pick your brain a little.
You probably saw the AE case where I pinged you when I quoted your arb vote. I won't get into the meat of the Petrarchan case since that should be handled strictly at the AE case at this point. However, there's a lot of stuff going on with other editors there and not much discussion from admins yet. It seems like we have a history of GMO AE cases on aspersions festering a bit with slow action, other editors getting emboldened to cast their own aspersions, and needing to sanction multiple editors instead of one.[4] Originally, the aspersions principle we crafted at ArbCom was meant to tamp down on editors making either direct aspersions or indirect ones (e.g., preventing gaming by not directly mentioning a specific editor).
It seems like the current case has been fairly slow on admin comments and is starting to go down the path of other editors joining in the aspersions like directly calling others' editing "pro-Monsanto"[5], excusing aspersions because they don't directly mention an editor by name[6], etc. I don't feel like opening separate AE's for other individuals since there likely would be more claims I'm trying to control the topic or display a "sense of superiority"[7], which seems to be an escalating problem of editors attacking those trying to get others to knock off stuff already consistently leading to aspersion-based sanctions in past cases. However, I'm also in a position where I can't respond to all the misrepresentations of my edits or talk page comments without opening separate cases or essentially derailing the current case even if I got a word extension since a lot of those have gotten into the realm of WP:BLUDGEON. I tend to ignore most of those claims since what they claim about me doesn't show up in the diffs and it's better to focus on the case at hand, but I guess it's just describing the languishing case issue again when these cases don't seem to be taken very seriously or at least expediently.
With some discussion on the AE talk page about slow cases in general, can you think of any reasons why these cases tend to not be dealt with a bit quicker, or does this seem pretty normal compared to general AE cases? It may be tough to say after two days though. For the GMO aspersions principle specifically, are there any ways to to briefly get the history and intent of it across to admins about why that behavior needs to be tamped down better than I presented in this current case? Back before the principle was written, I for one was tired of being called a shill, pro-Monsanto, etc. when sticking to WP:MEDRS, etc. on scientific content regardless of who it benefits or detracts from. A surprising number of editors don't seem to be taking these kind of aspersions seriously that caused the principle to be written in the first place, but I'm wondering if admins potentially reviewing such cases might not quite be getting how serious of problem this has been in the topic? Is there any way such aspersions cases can be made less prone to what we're seeing in the current case? Either way, these are mostly just broad meta- questions and advice on AE and the principle for the future rather than trying to litigate the current case here, so thanks in advance for any thoughts. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@Kingofaces43: I did see the ping, and I'll try to take a look at it, but I've been a bit busy and haven't had the time to look over it in depth, so I can't really comment from just hearing one side. Far as time frames, I've seen some AE cases take ten minutes and some take ten days. It depends on complexity and availability of admins to give a proper review. But I'd always prefer to take no action rather than taking a hasty and incorrect one. If I don't have the time to review the case completely, I'd rather leave it to someone who does. SeraphimbladeTalk to me06:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
No worries, I was partly expecting you were busy (I haven’t had much time during most of this either). I’d be glad if you want to review the case to get more admins involved, but just to clarify, I’m wondering more how to keep aspersion stuff from getting out of hand at AE in general in my comment above. No obligation on that obviously, I just wanted to see if you had any thoughts on improving that whenever you have time to respond. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
WP:CANVAS attempt. Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner. You are the complaintant and your request for comment by Seraphimblade is not neutral by any means. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Veritycheck, I'm pretty tough on people who canvass, but I don't see that here. Kingofaces43 is asking general questions about the AE process, because I have a lot of experience with AE. It can be a bit arcane, so it doesn't surprise me that people may have questions about how exactly it works. If I do comment (and I still don't know if I'll have time), it will be after reviewing what everyone has to say. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Your integrity is not in question. However, after Kingofaces43 having spelt out everything above to you and then following it with his request, "I’d be glad if you want to review the case to get more admins involved", I beg to differ. It is not in any shape or form a neutral request. Admin shopping is my interpretation. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I'll just say my part once to save on Seraphimblade's talk page pings for this subthread, but I made it very explicit that I originally came here asking more for meta-AE/ArbCom principle advice for the future. It's fine if they wanted to review the case on their own since we just needed more admins to chime in either way, but that's moot for now. It's not canvassing to notify an admin/Arb who had specifically cautioned the editor in question, nor is it to ask them about enforcement of a principle that both was crafted when they were an arb and has been enforced by them as an admin. Those last two are why I came here because Seraphimblade is probably one of the admins most familiar with the principle and related issues, not because I was expecting them to get involved in the case itself. If there is any question about it, I included diffs because that kind of periphery stuff at AE cases is one thing I was hoping they could give advice for in future cases since they had dealt with exactly that in a previous aspersions case. I shouldn't need to say anything more on my part with regards to canvassing as I tend to be a stickler about that too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
And people accuse me of being radical! Thanks. I'll get at adding back the general current stuff this week. Why is it that Catholic schools are frequently so bad in that respect? I'm pretty sure you gotta be aware of the travails several of us went through with a particular editor of Catholic school articles about 9 months ago, as the fallout is still hitting the noticeboards and AfD. Anyway, thanks for your help. John from Idegon (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
John from Idegon, it's not just Catholic schools in my experience, I've seen a ton of schools in general full of fluff like that. Though I suppose all Catholic schools are private, and private schools would have more interest in self-promotion than a public school would. Sometimes it's COI, sometimes boosterism from students, and sometimes it's pretty tough to tell the difference. SeraphimbladeTalk to me07:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, with the changes in the education marketplace since the turn of the century, even public schools are engaging in heavy duty marketing. The kids (except the really obnoxious ones, which I've had a couple of in the last week) are fairly easy to deal with....it's when the administration gets into it that it is a pain. Thanks for paying attention to schools. With Kudpung out, I'm the only project coordinator working on Western Hemisphere school articles, and it's getting hectic. I've got a relatively simple content dispute in Wisconsin that I've not been able to get to because these big POV issues just keep coming. John from Idegon (talk) 07:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
There is an open request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.
Technical news
Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.
Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.
00:45, 11 September 2018 Seraphimblade (talk | contribs) deleted page BairesDev (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
After reading your FAQ section I understand it's because of the type of claims we made and the lack of links and justifications for such claims. I was wondering if you could give us the chance to make the necessary changes in order to restore our article. I hope we can do so smoothly and I thank you in advance for your help.
No, you did fine. So, first, it sounds like you're employed by the company in question. That's fine if you are, but that's considered paid editing, which means there would be some disclosures you'd required to make. The linked page explains what those are and how to make them. That aside, it's not the worst I've ever seen, so I'd be willing to move it to a draft, provided you'll agree to have it reviewed by articles for creation rather than returning it to mainspace yourself. It's very difficult to remain neutral with a conflict of interest, so better that an editor without a conflict review it first. If you'll make the required disclosures and agree to do that, I'll restore it to a draft. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response!
Yes, all of that sounds fine and i'd be willing to do it. Just a question: I'm not a freelance editor or something like that, i'm in charge of communications in this company and have a stake in it. Do I still have to sign the disclosure?
Of course i'll have it reviewed and try to make it as unbiased as possible. No problem in submitting it to Articles for creation afterwards, better not to have this happen again. If you could restore it to a draft so I can start working on it, i'd appreciate it.
@AdaLovelaceDev: Yes, disclosure is still required in that instance; editing as a duty of employment or internship is still considered paid editing. Nothing needs to be signed, you just need to note that you are, in one of a few ways. The page I linked above details how it should be done, but let me know if anything's unclear about it. I've set the article to draft at Draft:BairesDev. SeraphimbladeTalk to me20:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
"I agree with the assessment by AGK" - did you notice that the two edits are consecutive and so only count as one revert by the definition of "revert"? Zerotalk04:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I spent a considerable amount of time and effort to craft an unbiased page for Nur Restaurant, of which I am an owner. I was totally unaware of the conflict of interest rules on Wiki and I didn't intend the page to be promotion, merely factual representation of the place. Please let me know what I must do to correct the page, or post disclaimers, so my work was not all for nothing. I am not adept at crafting these pages and would certainly appreciate some guidance.
CharlesAccivatti It had some problems, certainly (it refers to the chef with "Chef" as a title, we never use titles, people are referred to by full name on first mention and last name only thereafter), and contains a lot of puffy language ("that celebrates our common humanity", "highlight the Moroccan gastronomic heritage", and then a general listing of awards without any third-party referencing to indicate winning those awards was particularly noteworthy.), but it's not the worst I've seen. That aside, though, it looks like the referencing really only covers it via a few brief mentions in articles that are actually about something else. That's not enough referencing; references need to be reliable, independent, and be substantially or entirely about the subject. Name drops or brief blurbs are not sufficient. Do you know if better referencing than that is available? If not, an article won't be possible at all. SeraphimbladeTalk to me23:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the constructive response. I'll gladly do the diligence around better referencing and further edit down the extraneous language. Shall I include the references (URLs) in this thread? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesAccivatti (talk • contribs) 03:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
CharlesAccivatti, these are all either very brief blurbs, or just mentions in passing or name drops. I don't see the type of in-depth coverage in any of these references that would sustain an article. In order to be notable, it is necessary that a subject be extensively covered, not just name dropped frequently. SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I have just realized that this page Sophia_Bekele has been deleted or taken offline for rule (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion), this page has been online for over 10 years.
I’m not currently aware of the sections that go against the Wikipedia rule and would like to kindly request that you could help me identify those areas that appear as forms of advertising or promotion so that I can assist in editing and cleaning up the said parts to make them conform, I have been a keen contributor of this page.
My appeal is that you could restore it in the draft format so that it could be updated to an acceptable format.
Thanks for that. Given that she's almost certainly notable, I'll restore it, but I've stubbed it down. I see that you weren't really the one adding most of the fluffy, inappropriate language, but all the same the "highly successful" and that kind of breathless adjectives needs to stay out, not to mention I think five pull quotes in separate boxes. The article needs to be a summary biography, not an exhaustive CV. SeraphimbladeTalk to me00:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Samsung Galaxy J1 Mini Prime deleted
Hi Seraphimblade,
I am a University student and this is my first time trying to edit Wikipedia. In addition, this article is one of my assignment, and I have a responsibility to re-edit it. I am sorry for violating some of the information about Wikipedia when I edit this article. Could you please restore my draft article and tell me where the mistake in this article is, Because when I wrote, I referenced the same type of article (such as Samsung Galaxy note 3, note 4 etc.).
Acwwqq The mistake you made was that the article was extremely, blatantly promotional. It looks like a sales brochure, not an encyclopedia article. As just a couple examples: "GALAXY J1 Mini Prime is a product with high cost-effective. GALAXY J1 Mini Prime workmanship is excellent in order to guarantees the quality and service life. Returning to smaller screens (Four inches) from the big screen is this mobile phone's selling point. The most attractive advantage of this phone is its price. In general, it is a cost-effective choice for customers." We don't editorialize like that; we only neutrally present facts. The "Product Features" section is a sales pitch, not a neutral, factual description. We are not trying to sell the phone. In truth, encyclopedia articles should generally be rather dry, just presenting the facts about something in a clear, neutral fashion. I generally do not restore ads, and given how unsalvageable this one is, I will not restore it. SeraphimbladeTalk to me02:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Thaiboy Digital page deleted.
Hi Seraphimblade,
You've tagged a page I recently created, one for the musical artist Thaiboy Digital as "unambiguous spam/advertising". My intentions were to create an encyclopedic entry for an important artist, and I am sorry that I did not succeed. If you have time, could you please offer some advice as to how I can correct the page and make it suitable for publication?
Lithexfree, this was deleted as promotional. Before we proceed, please clarify if you are being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia, including being asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment or internship. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Seraphimblade,
In the interest of full disclosure, I have done and will likely continue to do work for the company that represents Thaiboy, but creating/editing/maintaining etc. wikipedia articles are not part of my duties. I noticed that many of the pages related to the company were poorly written/structured/maintained, or missing entirely, and I wanted to rectify that. If that is too much of a conflict of interest I understand, and if so would you be willing to help me find a different course of action for improving the quality of these pages? However, with this page my goal was to create a simple page populated primarily with well cited facts that could be expanded by other users. If it is appropriate for me to continue editing, could you make some recommendations as to how I can construct the page in a more appropriate, less promotional way?
Thank You
Lithexfree, thank you for not clearing that up. If it's not actually one of your employment duties, it's somewhat of a COI, but wouldn't count as paid editing. That said, the best way to improve the article would be to find better references, and stick only to facts verified by those references. As it stood, the article had two references: "The Fader", which I'm not sure of the reliability of but their writing looks pretty fluffy, another piece from The Fader that's just a brief blurb about an album, and a tweet, which would not generally be reliable at all. If those are the best available sources, that would indicate the subject is not notable or suitable for an article at all. If better, more reliable reference material is available, use that instead, and make sure each fact is actually referenced to a reliable source. Most of the "career" stuff, for example, was not referenced to anything at all. Wikipedia isn't the place to "get the word out", it's to summarize reliable and independent reference material that already exists about a subject. If references don't discuss something in reasonable depth, we shouldn't be the first to. So, it may be that the "missing" articles should remain missing. For quality improvements on existing articles, same thing—find high-quality reference material, summarize what that material discusses in a neutral manner and tone, and if you can't find references for statements that are unreferenced or poorly referenced, remove those statements. SeraphimbladeTalk to me17:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi SeraphimBlade,
Thank you very much for the constructive answer! I really appreciate it. As for the reference issue, it's a problem I have been running into quite frequently working on these pages. These artists are already established, with sizeable fanbases, but the majority of the published information on them comes from the music press. In this field, The Fader is one of the most respected and reliable sources. While I agree that occasionally these sources can drift into 'fluffy' language, I used them only to source information that was clear statement of facts, ie. the birthplace of the subject, or the artistic process of the subject. Would it be appropriate to source only that kind of information from those kind of sources? Also, in the case of the the career items not being cited, that was a fault of my own, as plenty of reliable sources exist, and I will correct it on my next attempt.
Thank you
Yes, just plain factual information from something like that should be fine. If they just say "X was born in Y", or what have you, and that's not otherwise in dispute, using a source like "Fader" would generally be okay. If the claim might be at all controversial, especially in biographies of living persons, we should take care to use the highest-quality sources for something like that (that would include things like someone's religious views, sexual orientation, political views, etc.). And like I said, I'm unsure about how reliable it is in general; it may be that it's just fine altogether. It depends primarily if their work tends to be fact checked, editorially controlled, and accurate. Some of those entertainment sources, even if reliable, do tend a bit toward the hyperbolic and exaggerated, so if they say things like "X is the best album of the year!", we should be very hesitant to take claims like that at face value. If you have a question about a particular source, you can search the archives at the reliable sources noticeboard, and ask about it there if it's not already been discussed. SeraphimbladeTalk to me18:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi SeraphimBlade
Ok, thank you very much for your time and advice.
Books & Bytes, Issue 30
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 30, August – Septmeber 2018
Library Card translation
Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref spreads to the Southern Hemisphere and beyond
Elfabet has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Asked and answered, and I really don't like repeating myself. It was written as a resume. You may not write resumes here. That's the last time I'll say it. SeraphimbladeTalk to me07:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can you help us understand and edit the following page:
Quit repeating the link, I saw it the first time and it's malformed anyway. The answer is "maybe", but even if the individual is notable (which depends not on what they've done, but on how much reliable and independent source material has been written about them), it would need to be written as an encyclopedia article, not a resume. If I need to repeat that once again, I will close this discussion. SeraphimbladeTalk to me07:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There are many articles on Wikipedia which you can take a look at to get the idea of how encyclopedia articles generally should be written. You can (and very much should) also read your first article, and probably do work with existing articles before trying to create a new one. They shouldn't just be a long laundry list of something someone's ever done. They should be primarily based on reliable secondary references, like newspaper or magazine articles, not primary references like patent applications, and be written in prose, not a bulleted list format. If substantial amounts of reliable, independent source material doesn't exist about a subject, then that's not an appropriate subject for an article at all. But regardless, they can't look like someone's resume. SeraphimbladeTalk to me07:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Subjectivity can cause the barring of true information, because the information is regarded self promotional. Information can benefit self and others. Benefit is not always only for self or only other. I think you will benefit Wikipedia if you do not chase people away, who are knowledgeable about topics. Let me know, what knowledge you have about Ethereum tokens. What happened with starting something and allowing others to expand on the work? In the post "Alphabetical List of Ethereum Tickers" you deleted, I added a logo of Africahead to the page. Did you delete that agreement as well, nut? Mdpienaar (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi. You recently speedy-deleted an article, Wish Farms, on WP:G11. I had reviewed that article, and moved it from AfC to article space. I am new to AfC, but this certainly seemed appropriate to me. While the article may have had some promotional element, G11 states that it "applies to pages that are exclusively promotional". This article certainly did not seem that way to me, it had many, many WP:RS, and was better written and better sourced than many (most?) articles I've seen survive at WP:AfD. I live in the Tampa, Florida area, within 50 miles of this company, and whenever there's a freeze (an unusual occurrence) or some other incident involving the huge strawberry industry in this county, at least one television outlet and usually the Tampa Bay Times, often the Orlando Sentinel, the Lakeland Ledger, Sarasota papers, etc. interview the CEO of Wish Farms. A quick news search shows a plethora of articles; the subject matter is eminently notable. There is no doubt the article would survive AfD, which is why I moved it from draft to main space, which based on the instructions at AfC, seemed appropriate. Now it's not only deleted, but salted it so it can't be recreated. What would it take to get it recreated, or at least unsalted? Jacona (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
The removal of any promotional content. The article was the product of a long spamvertising campaign and a substantial amount of sockpuppetry. The "innovation" and "philanthropy" sections are pure brochure junk, so those would definitely have to go. In the future, please ensure that articles have no promotional content prior to a move to mainspace. However, if you're willing to keep an eye on it, I'd be willing to restore it with the junk gone. SeraphimbladeTalk to me18:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
If you do not undelete the above article within 24 hours I will apply for a "deletion review" with regard to the article and the rest of my history on Wikipedia, which was deleted, it seems. We can discuss the article after you undeleted it. You made a mistake to delete it very hastily, without discussing it, before deletion. Mdpienaar (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
The one-sided view against self-promotion is a symptom of Caiaphas Syndrome, a societal disease. It causes instant deletion of articles, which are perceived as self-promotional. The fact of the matter with regard to the mentioned article is, the intention, you cannot possibly know, because it was not your intention. You will do much better editing, if you trust more. You struggle to distinguish between truths and fallacies. Probably you do not know what Truth is and that is why you make editing mistakes. The intention of the article was to start an article/table the crypto-community and anyone else can update and use as reference. No such platform exists anywhere, as far as i know. The table i started, you deleted, will be a useful tool and is much needed in the crypto-sphere. I already asked other people in the crypto-community to update the page with their information, but now the article does not exist.
If you closely look at the table, you will see, to the right two columns showed the Price and Market Cap of tokens. I do not even know how to link that to an outside source. Clearly the intention was to start the formation of a new group page, only many people can keep up to date, including administrators of crypto tokens. Another column with logos can only be updated with crypto-currency administrators self, because only they manage the copyrights on the logos. That makes me think of another big mistake an editor made. She posted a copyright infringement notice to my talk page without discussing and investigating it. A very short investigation could have shown i administer Africahead Ipparts (AFA), an erc20 token. Probably because the row of AFA, was at the top of the alphabetical list, the only with a logo, you reacted the way you did. It was at the top by coincidence because, the random tokens (3 highest market cap and tokens with the lowest market caps) included on the list, to get the list in formation, did not include any tokens before AFA, in an alphabetical list.
If you cannot see the sense of allowing the article after the above, it will go to DRV. I honestly think editors of Wikipedia should do a course on what Truth is. The knowledge will improve editing skills and remove the group subjectivity currently clearly visible in editing decisions. Mdpienaar (talk) 06:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
If you decide not to undelete the article, a possible solution is to let me know of another website; part of the Wikipedia group of websites, where the crypto-community can form the envisaged alphabetical (self-promotional? What nonsense) list and keep it up to date. Mdpienaar (talk) 07:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Mdpienaar, OrangeMike is quite correct. There are many companies out there that specifically offer web hosting out there at low or no cost; I've used both Nearly Free Speech and Linode and been happy with both, but there are many others as well. The Mediawiki software that Wikipedia runs on is open source and freely available, so if you specifically want a wiki format similar to Wikipedia, you could certainly set up a wiki anywhere you like using that software. You might also consider a wiki farm (Wikia is a well known one); I'm not sure exactly what they allow there, but their guidelines are generally much more open than Wikipedia and its sister sites, which all tend to have a relatively specific scope. What you're trying to do here might indeed be a good idea, but it's not in scope for Wikipedia. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Speedy Deletion of BiglyBT
Hello. Any feedback on why the page was deleted? I am not paid by or have any ties to the software developers. Just learned about the fork a while ago and wondered why wikipedia has no info on the torrent client.
I tried to include external sources, formatting, and linked relevant information, so what went wrong?
Romerojp, the reason is that the article was promotional, basically just a long and largely unreferenced feature list. The two "external sources" were from Torrentfreak, which is not a reliable source, and the Free Software Foundation, which is both not primarily a publisher, and regardless, the source was an interview, which is not independent. Two other than that were the project's own website, and the first source cited didn't even mention, let alone cover in depth, the article subject. But that aside, articles should not just be long feature lists or "Look how great this is!" That is promotion, and is incompatible with the neutrality required of articles. If you can find better, more reliable references which cover this software in reasonable depth, you might be able to write an appropriate article on it, sticking only to facts those sources discuss written about in a neutral manner. If not, then the answer to your question is very simple—we don't have an article on it because we shouldn't have one. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Firstly, regarding the contents: While you note that it was a "just long and unreferenced feature list", this would also be the case of other BitTorrent client pages such as Vuze, KTorrent, RTorrent... etc. (I literally just copied a couple from Comparison of BitTorrent clients, I invite you to dive into that page, you might want to go on a deletion frenzy if you are following the same standard). But in all seriousness, the only reason I added the feature list because it is what sets BiglyBT apart from its Vuze and Azureus. I thought that was insightful. Personally, I don't think the tone of the article gave off a "Look how great this is!" vibe.
And then, regarding the sources: Torrentfreak is also listed as a source for other bit torrent client pages (see the link above). I think it's obvious, because, who else will talk about torrents? Do they need to be discussed in a paper before they are added to Wikipedia? And what about the first source? I am remembering what I wrote because I do not have the source, but if memory serves me correctly, it specified that Vuze, formerly Azureus, is Java based. And since BiglyBT uses the Azuereus Engine, it is also Java based. Is that a problem? Do all sources need to cover in depth the article subject?
Lastly, a note on consistency: As I mentioned briefly before, many other BitTorrent clients in Comparison of BitTorrent clients have feature lists that reference their project's home. An overlapping set of BitTorrent clients also has Torrentfreak cited as a source. So, what gives?
In any case, can I at least get the source of the article back? I don't have it saved locally in my computer, and I'd like to keep working on it. Romerojp (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering why there was a speedy deletion of Escape The Room? I have no ties to the company, just am an avid player and realized that some of the other companies have pages and they didn't. The only page for them is Escape the room which is a video game. I included a ton of sources and tried to keep it unbiased (even though they produce my favorite games). It's the first page I've created, just want to know what I did wrong and what i can do to make the page better. Munchisfunny (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Munchisfunny, the first big red flag is that the article contained the address of all the company's locations. That's a definite no and any contact information is a hallmark of promotional writing, with the exception of one link to an official website at the bottom of the article in the "External links" section. That aside, the article was just basically a large, mostly unreferenced laundry list of all the company's locations and attractions. Articles about companies should, instead, be more about the company as a whole. Some description of what the company does is of course appropriate (though this should be only a brief summary, and link to the escape room article for readers interested in a lot of detail on it), but it should describe the company's founding, structure, history, etc., not just be a detailed list of its products or services. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and I should add: Choosing an appropriate subject for a new article, and then creating that article, is one of the most difficult things to do here. For newer editors, I always recommend that they either start out by working on existing articles to get more of a feel for how we do things, or if you're sure you can create a new one correctly, create it as a draft (you can do so by clicking on this link: Draft:Escape The Room and writing there), and have articles for creation review it. Inappropriate mainspace articles will be deleted, but with drafts you can fix the issues and try again. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Next Eleven
Thanks for closing the long AfD, looks like only the talk page got deleted and Next Eleven still exists. Please check. I have placed a G6 CSD, as I could not find any other more appropriate template.
Also wanted to check with regarding a procedural Questions, A and B these templates are related to this article, As I understand they also should be deleted since they are based on a deleted article, does it need another individual TfD discussion or some other process is better in this case. Appreciate your suggestions on this. Regards. --DBigXrayᗙ14:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I think I see what happened there. That page had a large number of edits, so deletion on those occasionally fails after it's scheduled with the DB. It worked this time. SeraphimbladeTalk to me15:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, appreciate the quick response. Regarding the associated template, here is the correct link, AB above links were wrong, sorry about that. Please, Let me know if they need CSD or TfD .--DBigXrayᗙ18:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
DBigXray, there's no real requirement that templates be based upon an article. If you think the templates ought to be deleted as well, that would need to go to TfD, but they don't really meet any speedy criterion. SeraphimbladeTalk to me18:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi I saw you closed the above as keep and I wondered if you could just explain why you didn't take into account WP:BLPCRIME as per WP:BDP. I honestly thought that this would have trumped any sources without very much need for discussion. The person was never convicted of any crime. BTW I am not suggesting that you closed this incorrectly I am just curious and also to avoid wasting my time with this argument in any further AFD. Cheers. --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Domdeparis, while I did also see the BLPCRIME arguments, BLPCRIME does not mean we can never write anything regarding criminal allegations. Like most of BLP policy, it means that we should do so with care, and ensure that we're able to do so from highly reliable sources in order to avoid sensationalism, spreading gossip, or publicizing something that wasn't particularly in public view prior to us writing about it. In this case, however, those arguing to keep demonstrated quite convincingly that, first, the allegations were already highly publicized, and that such publicity was through reliable and high-quality sources. BLPCRIME would not keep us from writing about, for example, the suspicions against Richard Jewell, even though he was in fact totally exonerated. BLP and its subpolicies don't mean we can never write about certain things, only that we should be especially careful when doing so. SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
From what I can gather BLPCRIME only applies to individuals who are not public figures but as Jewell had already become well known as a "hero" before being accused and he was totally exonerated of the crimes as another person was charged and convicted. We are not really in the same situation I think. Brouillard is only know as having been accused of sex crimes, without these accusations he would never have become known. The article about Jewell is almost totally positive and the article about Brouillard is totally negative. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Your dispute isn't with me, really, and I'm not going to rehash. The AfD demonstrated that there were sufficient sources, and did not agree that BLPCRIME mandated deletion. If you think the article isn't written well, you can of course edit it. SeraphimbladeTalk to me17:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't have dispute with anyone over this I'm just trying to get a better understanding of the policy and guidelines behind this. Thanks for taking the time to reply. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)As the edit summary said, this was hopelessly promotional. It is possible that (if the unsourced claims in the original are true) that this might be a notable subject; but the item deleted was an advert (in very bad English, I might add). --Orange Mike | Talk12:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Once again, OrangeMike has pretty well beat me to it, and I entirely agree with what he said. I would add that this is not the first time you've had issues with creating promotional content related to this organization, which makes it appear that you may be paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia on this subject, including doing so as a duty of employment or internship. That's not prohibited, but it is required that paid editors disclose that they are paid as outlined here. And regardless, we do not permit advertising or promotion on Wikipedia, including any form of "talking up" or PR-speak, as this is incompatible with our requirement that Wikipedia content remain neutral. SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Deletion of my proposed article "John DiLeva Halpern"
Hi Seraphimblade,
I hope my message finds you well!
You recently deleted and then protected a page entitled "John DiLeva Halpern". At the beginning of the process, I disclosed that I was being paid to create this page. Prior to your deletion, I had contested the page's speedy deletion, and as far as I can tell, my contestation still has yet to be reviewed.
May you please allow me to understand your process for removing this page? Prior to deletion, I had made an attempt to remove the speedy deletion notice from the page, mistakenly believing that, because I was contesting the deletion, its notice no longer belonged on the page. This was done with no deceitful intent; I am a new contributor to Wikipedia but nevertheless hold its integrity to the highest standard.
If the arc of this page's progress caused you to block its publication, could you inform me how I may proceed to get it back on track? As stated in my contestation of speedy deletion, the page was heavily edited and thoroughly sourced with an eye to meeting standards, and if it did not meet these standards, I believe we have the right to edit it toward those goals before its total removal.
I appreciate your interest, insight, and willingness to advise.
Dafrontani, the article read more like a "profile" than an encyclopedia article. Now, it may be that this individual is notable, but statements like "He is known for public artworks and films engaging social activism and cultural advocacy" (known by whom, according to whom?) and "Established at the request of His Holiness the Dalai Lama to preserve the Tibetan culture" would require backing references. (I do like the fireworks on the bridge part; that's rather funny.) Also, you may want to see our conflict of interest guidelines. Disclosure is appreciated, but that's not all that's required. Generally speaking, paid editors should not directly edit mainspace articles. If editing an existing article, they should instead suggest an edit on the talk page and use {{request edit}} to request that an editor without a conflict review it. For new articles, they should be created as a draft and evaluated by articles for creation rather than being placed directly into mainspace. If AfC will approve a draft, I would unprotect the page to allow moving the draft there. SeraphimbladeTalk to me20:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.
Arbitration
Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
What law school did you go to? You deleted my contributions to Terry v Ohio without any reason. How can you argue the Court did not reduce constitutional protections from citizens in favor of extending protections to law enforcement? How can you argue the Court did not deviate from the Amendment's founder's interpreted that unreasonable seizure is when law enforcement seize without warrant or probable cause? How can you argue the canon of co destruction wasn't ignored, or that the Court amended the plain language of the constitution without appropriate convention? You can't, or at least you have not. It is an abuse of your status to delete contributions in order to win arguments, which is what you have done. This is exactly why wikipedia is a joke in the academic and scholarly communities. Seems to be only for brainwashed individuals who know little about what they preach. Did you even read the opinion by the Court and the decenting justice's opinion? Do you even understand what the Fourth Amendment is? Lots of questions due to such a heavy handed response by you to delete. You are not god of wikipedia? Just someone with too much time and not enough know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.254.136.129 (talk) 02:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Anonymous editor 174.254.136.129, one would imagine that an attorney would know how to spell "dissenting", capitalize "Wikipedia", write grammatically correct sentences, and so on, given that precise writing is the hallmark of an attorney's work. Regardless, we do not permit editorializing in articles, even if you really are an attorney. And yes, I have read the opinions in that case. SeraphimbladeTalk to me09:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Roger Lusby
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Lusby. Can you please explain to me why this is a cursory delete. One vague wave nomination and one similar delete comment is routinely not enough for a delete. Most commonly such lowly attended afds are relisted as no consensus or closed as soft delete or similar. This AFD had a valid, policy based keep argument yet was treated as less than those which were unopposed. Why? As to the actual !votes, If two people say a Grammy nomination is for a minor award and one says it is it's countries premier award how would you close it? I'm guessing you would not delete it. Why treat New Zealand as a third rate citizen? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Duffbeerforme, AfD is not a vote or headcount, but an analysis of the arguments presented. In this case, the nominator and one other editor presented detailed arguments that there are not sufficient sources available to support the article, and that they had done their homework to find out if anything better was available. Your argument, to be frank, didn't address the reason for nomination at all. Even if the artist did technically pass some SNG, which was itself in dispute, that only creates a rebuttable presumption of notability, and it is rebutted in exactly that way, by demonstrating that there isn't in fact enough reference material. To argue against that, your "keep" argument should have shown that there is in fact a substantial amount of reliable source material available about this individual, and if you'd clearly done that, the result would've been a keep instead. If there really isn't enough source material available, deletion is the correct way to go, and numbers can't change that. Of course, the deletion does not preclude creating an article that addresses that problem, if better material either can be found or becomes available in the future. SeraphimbladeTalk to me13:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I can not see the deleted content but from memory it had a primary source that directly supported the claim of notability. That is enough reference material. You say the pass of the SNG was in dispute. Substitute NZ Music awards with Grammies. Would it then be in dispute. If the answer is no then this is simply cultural bias. I also note that your response fails to address that your cursory close calls delete without explanation while unopposed afds are routinely relisted or soft delete. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
That's not up to me. Both of the other editors at the AfD were of the opinion that the award is not a major one. Regardless, however, even if we did consider it a major award, we'd need more than primary sources or simple verification of the nomination. If better source material wasn't available, that would indeed lend credence to the argument that a nomination for such an award is not a major event if it goes relatively uncommented on by reliable sources. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Mac Duggal article deletion
Just curious why this article was deleted without explanation? I know you guys like power, but there was nothing advertorial abut that article. The company makes dresses for celebrities. Sources were Forbes, ABC, Glamour magazine, India Times, Bravo TV, and many other credible, independent outlets. Scribitor (talk) 01:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Scribitor, sourcing has nothing to do with it. It may indeed be that it's possible to write an article about this subject, but promotional articles are deleted regardless. The deletion log makes clear that promotion was the reason for the deletion. "Power" has nothing to do with it; I can only delete things in the circumstances that the community has agreed are appropriate, and promotional content is one of them. SeraphimbladeTalk to me02:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Then you agree that "It may indeed be that it's possible to write an article about this subject." The Wikipedia rules said that if its possible the article could be written in an objective fashion, then the article should not be deleted. It doesn't even matter at this point though. There isn't even a link to see the article anymore and the talk page is also invisible or very hard to find. Nothing promotional in the article at all. This is purely your personal decision. Scribitor (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Scribitor, no, it is not my "personal decision". Another editor flagged the page as promotional, and I agreed with them and deleted it. To give a sample of the issues: "Mac Duggal is a privately-held couture fashion design firm that specializes in prom dresses and high-end dresses worn at red carpet events, galas, Miss America pageants, Miss USA pageants, and other social affairs." (No, "Mac Duggal is a fashion design company.") "Mac Duggal dresses are sold at retailers such as Bloomingdale’s, Lord & Taylor,Nordstroms, and several boutiques across the globe." (We generally don't give "Buy it here!" locations, and regardless, the last part is vague and inexact, and uses "across the globe" marketese rather than "worldwide."). "Mac Duggal couture has been worn on stage by numerous actresses and performers, including Aretha Franklin, Bette Midler, Paris Hilton, Gwyneth Paltrow, Carrie Underwood." (Most of these are unreferenced, and it is not "couture", it is "clothing".) That's just the first three sentences, and the rest carries on this way. We absolutely do not permit promotional material, including "talking up". That is not my personal decision, it is the longstanding consensus of the community. Articles must be written neutrally. That means being rather dry, and sticking to facts, not trying to make it "exciting". SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
So again, you are conceding that the article COULD be written in a way that gets past this nitpicking, but instead you chose to summarily delete the article versus allowing 10 minutes to give it a quick edit. Wikipedia's own policy says that if an article could be written in a way that is not advertorial, as you're saying this one was, that it should not be speedy deleted. You yourself said "It may indeed be that it's possible to write an article about this subject." What is the point of policies and procedures if you can just circumvent it all at your leisure? This article needs to be restored and edited to make it "[un]exciting" and "[not]talking up." That would provide some semblance of legitimate procedural operations at Wikipedia. Scribitor (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Re: Deletion of Nur Restaurant page
Hi Seraphimblade,
I'd like to again request your assistance with regaining access to the deleted page for Nur Restaurant in Morocco.
Here is the archived thread pertaining to this discussion where you requested a dedicated and in depth media reference to substantiate the notability of Nur. Changed to a link rather than a copy-paste, hope that's alright.User_talk:Seraphimblade/archive_16#Re:_Nur_Restaurant_Page_deletion
CharlesAccivatti, yes, that kind of in-depth source is exactly what we'd be looking for to demonstrate notability. We'd generally want to see more than one like that, but it's very much a start, so I've restored it as a draft at Draft:Nur Restaurant. I do see someone already left you some information on conflict of interest as well, so please do keep those requirements in mind, including not editing mainspace articles directly where COI exists. For articles that don't yet exist in mainspace, that can be done by editing the draft and requesting review from articles for creation. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
ARBCOM?
Hi Seraphimblade, would you consider running for ArbCom again? We need good people like yourself. Right now there are only three people running to fill six positions, and two of those running are not even administrators. Please consider serving again if you are able. The deadline for nominations is in a few days. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 11:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Softlavender, I appreciate the sentiment and will give it some thought. I'm not as swamped as I was near the end of 2015 (hence why I didn't run again, I wouldn't have had anywhere near the time to put into it at that point), but it is an awfully substantial amount of time. SeraphimbladeTalk to me20:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Arbcom has been much much slower this year (and is expected to continue to be similarly less busy), and they only tried five cases total, so the time involved would be substantially less. If that helps. Softlavender (talk) 05:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Seraphimblade. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Speedy Deletion of "Bureau for Research and Economic Analysis of Development"
The Bureau for Research and Economic Analysis of Development had a page which you speedily deleted several months ago. I believe this organization is notable. I cannot see the sourcing on the original page (I am not the original author, and the page has been deleted), but I would like to ask if a draft could be restored for further work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EAWH (talk • contribs) 16:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
EAWH, looks like that was deleted as profile spam. There's nothing really useful in it; the only source it cites is the organization's own website. If you think you've got the references to write it, please by all means do. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Suggestions made to initial draft posting.
Thank you for your feedback on my initial post within the Wikipedia community. I understand the deletion of my post for the company Fresh One, LLC and will begin a more attentive post soon. I want to clarify that I am not paid by Fresh One and am not part of the company. I want to complete an entry within Wikipedia and look forward to helping make it a great source of information. DaniFordinfo (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
... and that same aggressive vandal immediately resumed adding the same content. I wasn't at a desktop computer all weekend and so I couldn't monitor my watchlist to revert it before it stayed in the article for 12 hours. I think indefinite semiprotection is possibly necessary, as absurd as it seems to have to do that on this stub. Thank you! - Julietdeltalima(talk)19:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, my name is culix. I am working on The Phenomenauts. A few months ago we had a discussion about whether using audio clips would be appropriate for this article. I appreciate your time and advice on how to fix this.
I have cleaned up and improved the article to better incorporate reviewer commentary and context about one of the songs. I would like to make a case for including a single audio clip for the article. Would you be willing to take a look and tell me if you think this is appropriate? I have summarized my points in a section for easy reference on the Talk page, here.
You deleted this page per WP:A7 a few weeks ago. It's since been recreated by the same editor who created the previous version. Since this version is not substantially different from the one you deleted, could I get you to delete it again? I'd do this myself, but I'm involved here. Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Jumping in here. I am looking over JC7V7DC5768's new page edits and was surprised to see that this article had been A7'ed. I obviously can't see the deleted material but was there no claim made to his having played in the first division in South Africa as that would seem to satisfy WP:NFOOTY and thus make him ineligible for A7. .Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.
Hi Seraphimblade. You userfied two articles for me, User:Bsherr/Rachel Sussman and User:Bsherr/Featherlite Coaches, but without the revision histories. I'm trying to recover them for attribution purposes. Is it technically possible to restore the revision histories of the deleted articles? I'd like to history merge them with the current articles. --Bsherr (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.
Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.
Technical news
Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
{{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.
Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
You have deleted the page I was working on on 28-th of April 2018.
The page title is "Modern Stochastics: Theory and Application".
Your reason for this was summarised by the code "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion".
I know it's been a while since the deletion.
But I will appreciate if you can provide more details on why the page was deleted and some suggestions on improving its content in order to be accepted by Wikipedia.
I do not have an account on Wikipedia. I just was working from another IP address. Even now I have different IP than a week ago. I can shaer with you word document which content was used to make the article. --130.180.212.109 (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Could you please undelete this article? It was speedy deleted as blatant advertising, which (as someone who I don't think has edited the article, but lives in the company's country of operation and has heard of them) in my view wasn't (also in Graham Bartlett's at WP:REFUND. They are a notable company - if people want to argue otherwise, they should nominate it at AfD so there can be an actual discussion about it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@The Drover's Wife: What references do you intend to use to write the article? Most of them there were just trivial name drops, and half the article was "awards", common with UPE (which in this case we know it was). If you've got some more substantial references in mind and plan to fix it using those, I'd certainly be willing to, but I will not as was since that would reward a UPE. SeraphimbladeTalk to me02:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I'd potentially be interested in expanding it because references aren't hard to come across, and I have zero problem with the awards section being removed. I have no idea what UPE means, but I really resent prominent Australian business topics unilaterally disappearing on the whim of some overseas user because they've never heard of them. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with having heard of them, or indeed whether the company is notable (and referring to another editor's nationality is bad form anyway, and makes me half tempted to just say no). G11 means that the article is advertising, it has nothing to do with notability. In this case, the article was a brief "profile" or "about us" with half of it being awards, with reference bombing of generally trivial mentions. UPE means undisclosed paid editor, and in this case we know the article was written by an undisclosed paid editing ring. So, if an established editor is willing to work on the article and has sources to hand, I'm certainly happy to restore it for that purpose, but if those name drops are all that's available, restoring it would serve the UPE's purpose of "getting the copy up". Since you've said the references are easy to find, let me know what you've found and then I'll restore it. SeraphimbladeTalk to me03:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Topic ban clarification
An editor is making bad edits to the Peter Strzok page. I was going to take it to the talk page of the article but it seems pointless given the track record of the editor and the fact that the editor appears to have been topic-banned from US politics (?)[8]. Could you clarify whether the editor is topic banned or not? Can the editor's bad edits be reverted? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.
Technical news
AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.
Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.
Deleted Draft: Accolade (health and benefits company)
Hi, my draft was flagged as promotional and deleted. I will attempt to revise so that it does not sound promotional, as this was not the intention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cguarino13 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Deleted Draft: Burberry Digital Marketing Strategy
Hi, I am a student and i am doing a project for my digital marketing coursework. My teacher will mark my work. Could you please recover my work on the wiki? Thanks a lot !!!!
The following is my original work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penny Pu (talk • contribs)
@Penny Pu: I checked and do not see that you have any deleted contributions. I'm not sure what you're referring to. Regardless, what you've put here is unacceptably promotional. If that were put in as an article, I would delete it as advertising. Wikipedia does not permit marketing or promotion. SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, my name is culix. I am working on The Phenomenauts. A few months ago we had a discussion about whether using audio clips would be appropriate for this article. I appreciate your time and advice on how to fix this.
I have cleaned up and improved the article to better incorporate reviewer commentary and context about one of the songs. I would like to make a case for including a single audio clip for the article. Would you be willing to take a look and tell me if you think this is appropriate? I have summarized my points in a section for easy reference on the Talk page, here. My apologies for posting twice; I'm not trying to bother you, I just thought I would check.
Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.
Technical news
A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
paid-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.
Its difficult to be so many things, I was writing about myself but as a Society that I run, Im a Pc Analyst, Im a Journalist, Im a President of an Animal Society, Im also a Broker and a student of Law and Economics, I did not mention any of this on my page. So I was not Advertising myself. So does this mean Im not aloud to be here? I thought I was supposed to reference my name as the president of the society and Systems Administrator of the same. I did of course carelessly type. Anyway I epilogize for any inconvenience, Have a good one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fotios Evangelopoulos (talk • contribs) 18:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
