User talk:78.26/archive2021-2

Olonets

I don't know what you want from me.Here the source http://illhportal.krc.karelia.ru/publ.php?id=3110&plang=r

Hi, and thanks for writing. I can't open this, sorry, but let's assume it's good and proper reference. However, it is just one reference, and even good references have typos. Why does this source take precedence over any other source that shows the other variant? This isn't something I can unilaterally decide, but it would be good to discuss at the talk page of the article before implementation, so that those who have expertise can review the preponderance of evidence. Happy editing. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Because the city in Russia and I am copying the reference from Russia Wikipedia page. By the way reference itself was published by the Russian Academy of Science. Anyway goodbye, I am going to sleep now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.197.251.137 (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have reverted your edit in the past. Back then there was no citation for the change and hence I reverted, given the change seemed not very logical. The IP user later provided the URL and RU wiki on my talk page, but I couldn't do much as it's in Russian.

@IP 5.197.251.137: May I suggest you to post in the Wikipedia talk:Russian Wikipedians' notice board so that native Russians would know what to do? Thanks! -- DaxServer (talk) 08:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

@78.26: Can you please watch W10DD-D, it isn't notable. So it was redirect, but sadly it keeps getting restored. Catfurball (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Catfurball: I agree with you and Rusf10 (talk · contribs) on this. I don't think it's notable. I highly doubt the community at large would think its notable, but I'm a little leery of protecting a couple of editors' preferred version of the page when essentially the "article" has been edit warred over, because it wasn't redirected by community consensus. My advice would be that next time the redirect is undone, one of you take it to AfD, where a community consensus on it will be developed, and anyone recreating the article (in its current condition) will be editing disruptively against consensus. Does that make sense? The only thing I might point out is that the article lists all the sub-channels, while the re-direct target only lists the main channel, and therefore removes encyclopedic information. Perhaps the list could be expanded to address that, as a suggestion. All the best, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as always, @Gerda Arendt: 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing an RfC at Donald Trump

I was wondering whether you could formally close the RfC at Talk:Donald Trump#The Lead. The RfC template has expired after the standard one month period and discussion has petered out but there are disputes about the resulting consensus. Thanks! ~ HAL333 18:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: Given that I've been blissfully unaware of that discussion, it may take me a little bit, and someone may beat met to it (I hope...) but I'll give it a swing when I get some time. All the best, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. ~ HAL333 18:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in my RFA

I very much appreciate your early encouragement over at online poll. I came into this process blind, but have been trusted, expect to be trusted, will endeavor to be trusted. Please call me on my inexperience; I believe feedback is sunlight to the soul (and can burn). BusterD (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BusterD: You handled yourself at that RfA exactly as I anticipated: exceptionally. You'll do exceptionally well as an administrator, and your carefulness and caution is a big part of that. Feel free to reach out if you have any questions (so I can happily join you in not-knowing, probably), or if the need arises, just to vent. All the best, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure there is some venerable sacred out there whose entire serenity is based on not-knowing. BusterD (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Bug_Bite_Thing Help

Hi 78.26,

Thank you for reviewing my submission. I've heavily edited this article down to be as neutral as possible in its current form. My first rejection seemed to suggest I was being paid to write this, but I am just an unpaid contributor writing about topics thats interest me (trying to be a part of the wiki community). Could you please provide editing guidance on how I might be able to make my Bug Bite Thing entry 'less promotional' ... I can't seem to find the promotional language in it. There's even balanced talk of it efficacy and mechanism. I like to look for interesting finds that don't have entries yet on Wiki, and this looked like a fun topic.

Thank you again for your help, ping— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pingbruise (talk • contribs) 14:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pingbruise! Thanks for writing, and I'll try to be helpful. First off, please sign your communications by typing four tildes at the end. ("~~~~") I noticed you also created Charlton Horn Fair, and great work! I'll admit that writing an article about new and currently available commercial products is difficult, because the sources themselves tend to be promotional in nature. For instance, I'm looking at the Shape article, and it claims to be an objective product review, but the "reviewer" hasn't actually tested the product, is just an article about how many positive reviews on Amazon the product has received. In general, please don't use anything from PR sources, unless necessary to confirm basic facts. The "Philanthropy" section shoudl be removed in my opinion. It is based purely on a PR piece, and is obviously meant to instill thoughts of "see, what a great company this is" in the reader, while having little to do with company history or other encyclopedic information. The clinical trial would be useful if it weren't sponsored by the manufacturer, although I applaud you for describing it as such. Also, good job balancing the statement with reference 10 (the aforementioned Shape article). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying not to upset any editors and moderators: when would you recommend a good time to resubmit for approval? (I'm still editing currently) Thank you again for all of your help. Pingbruise (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 78.26! Thank you so much for the advice! I will take your suggestions into consideration with my next edits! Thanks again! - PingbruisePingbruise (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pingbruise:, there's no definitive answer to your question. The time for re-submission is when you feel you've done your best to adress the concerns of the reviewer who declined your submission. Editors will be patient with you so long as it is clear you are attempting to comply with our policies and terms-of-use. Where established editors get impatient is when an editor keeps re-submitting without making an effort towards improvement, and that happens a lot because those editors are clearly here to get their product/company/candidate/grandfather promoted on Wikipedia. If I may, may I recommend HighKing to you? If they're willing, I know them to have an unsusual level of expertise regarding these types of topics, and their guidance would be most useful. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the recommendation! I will reach out to that user. I am holding off resubmission until I feel much more confident I have complied with Wiki guidelines so as not to upset editors. Thanks again for all of your help! Pingbruise (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pingbruise, I've looked at the Draft article and I have some suggestions. The topic of the draft appears to be the product itself and not the company but the infobox is for the company - can I suggest using "Infobox product" instead. While the WP:NCORP guidelines are the appropriate guidelines for both companies and products, it is easier to find "Independent Content" (defined in WP:ORGIND) for products than it is for a company, mainly due to the fact that people can review a product and provide their own opinion. This company appears very active in getting the product into the hands of various media outlets for a review and there's nothing wrong with that - so long as the review is real and the opinion of the reviewer. I suggest you change the Draft to put the focus entirely on the product, put all of the company information about Shark Tank and the Founder in its own single section. Find a photo of the product rather than the company logo. The article doesn't need to be long so don't worry about trying to lengthen it. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having another little think about this - the Bug Bite Thing suction tool isn't unique as there are a number of different manufacturers that market a similar product - for example the Memine EZ Bites Relief, Trobing Venom Extractor, Wonderwin Bug Bite Suction Tool, Evo Dyne Bug Bite Suction Tool, etc. Can I suggest that you consider writing a more generic article, not featuring any particular brand, to describe these types of tools. The article can always have a section listing the names of such tools. Another suggestion is to widen the scope of the article to include other non-drug insect-bite treatments such as products like "zap-it!" or "insect pens" or "heat_it" electronic devices that heat up the sting area or the opposite - devices that "freeze" the sting site. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 78.26 and HighKing! Thank you both for your suggestions and guidance. I was hoping you could take a look at my Draft now and see how it's going please? I've expressed my satisfaction and personal interest in the Bug Bite Thing tool, so I tried option 1 from HighKing, instead of writing a whole new, generic article. I think what I have now is balanced, informative, and I was able to take some satisfactory photos for the article as well (I think!). I wanted to run it by you two before I try another submission. Thank you again for all your help! Pingbruise (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pingbruise, here's my advice. For the moment, step back and forget about the text you have in the draft at present. Why is this product notable exactly? There's other "venom suction" tools out there as I mentioned earlier. Is it because Lori Greiner offered a "Golden Ticket" (the lede suggests this is what is notable)? If so, find references that meet NCORP that talk about that (I've looked, I cannot find any). If that isn't what is notable (and why does the article lede only really discuss this), then what is? Finally, don't write a sentence until you've figured out why this product is notable and which two/three references you can rely on that establishes notability and meets NCORP (especially ORGIND and CORPDEPTH). If I'm being honest with you, I think you'll struggle with this, it is WP:TOOSOON for most small two year old companies to have established notability and especially with something that isn't particularly unique but happened to be on television. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pingbruise, thanks for writing. I'm going to echo HighKing on this. I can't yet figure out if your article is on the tool, or the company. As an encyclopedia reader, I'd be much more interested in an article about the generic tool (say "Insect Bite Suction Tools"), of which Bug Bite is one of several. You could write about the science (or lack thereof) behind "bite suction", some history of past attempts, and then a small, very neutrally worded section about how Bug Bite Thing recieved TV coverage and subsequent funding. Just an idea, because I don't think this particular product/company quite meets our notability requirements, yet anyway. I hope that helps. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request

@78.26: Can you please delete Category:Los Angeles user templates and Category:San Francisco user templates which I created. I put the cities into Category:California city user templates. Catfurball (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Catfurball:

Done. By the way, you can always put "{{G7}}" on any similar page you want deleted, and another admin might get to it faster. All the best, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I need my article ‘Pyrexx Ng’ unblocked

I need my article unblocked

Pyrexx Ng [[User:Gloryavuibuikeambrose|Gloryavuibuikeambrose]] ([[User talk:Gloryavuibuikeambrose|talk]]). (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will not restore this attempt at self-promotion, sorry. I haven't thoroughly checked, but I doubt the isocarboxazid metabolism reference support your claims. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Lee Erwin (organist)

On 30 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lee Erwin (organist), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Lee Erwin spent six years scoring every one of Buster Keaton's silent features? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lee Erwin (organist). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Lee Erwin (organist)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

@78.26: Hakainde Hichilema has been vandalized many times today, can you please protect him he needs a rest. Catfurball (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Catfurball:

Done. By the way, a better option might be Rest for Persecuted Pages since I'm not around all the time. All the best, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User: Darknipples

Since the second point in your message on their talk page is in error, shouldn't you make a correction? Please consider whether a two week block may be excessive in this situation. The editor reacted poorly after being criticized quite harshly by Valereee for their seven year old username that she called "ugly". If the username is unacceptable, they should have been given the opportunity to change it rather than being harshly criticized for it. That's my opinion, at least. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth when I saw the "I'm ugly" refactor I went to make a block myself. I was probably going to do 1 week. Regardless this is certainly actionable. If 78.26 has not made this block it would have been made by me. While I would have done a shorter duration, 2 weeks seems appropriate to me also. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the editor over-reacted inappropriately, but Valereee was the first to use the word "ugly" to describe this editor's seven year old Wikipedia persona. Please note that the editor has been productive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She used the word ugly to describe a username. This user altered her comment to make it look like she was calling herself ugly in her own voice. It is difficult to compare these two acts. Criticizing a username even harshly is not a personal attack. Calling a person ugly is a personal attack. Posting with someone else's signature to make it look like they have called themselves ugly with the edit summary "fixed it" goes well beyond the line. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Cullen328: I hope you know that I hold your opinion in the highest regard, and that if I don't end up completely agreeing with you in this instance it isn't because I haven't carefully listened, considered, and valued your opinion. I am grateful you have taken the time to reach out to me. I fully realize DN is not a "troll". If I had thought so, I would have indeffed. In fact, although I don't remember the exact circumstances, this user's name has come to my random negative attention previously, and I checked their user contributions because it is a user name a troll would use, but an examination demonstrated a very productive editor, therefore I left it alone. However, my misgivings have now been expressed by others at the ANI discussion. Regarding the "administrative capacity" remark, my thinking was that Valereee was explaining exactly what was wrong with the user name, and giving DN a chance to rectify the problem before taking any administrative action. However, she has set the record straight and I stand corrected. Regarding the ugly comment, I believe she is right. In my opinion it is an ugly user name, and I can see why it would make editors feel this is a less collaborative encyclopedia because of it. It is by no means the only ugly user name that's been allowed to stand. I do not see Valereee's expression that the user name is "ugly" to be a personal attack, she is expressing deep and valid concerns regarding the user name, not the editor. I have other users question (not harshly) my own numeric-only user name, they have some valid points. Anyway, I'm sorry my administrative actions have been unclear enough as to cause some trouble, and as I stated I would be fine with a modification to the block length, but at this point because of the ANI discussion it seems consensus would need to be reached as there have been several differing opinions. I will strike the second point on DN's talk page (was going to, anyway). I'm debating whether responding to their block response (I'm gas-lighting them...) is worth the effort, as it is clearly explained several times over on the ANI page, as well as here (thank you HighInBC). Overall though, given they just had a clean block record destroyed, I've seen a lot worse and venting is to be expected. Anyway, after I perform promised strike, I think done with this unexpectedly eventful evening. zzzzzz. All the best, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your response and I hope that you have a good night's sleep. I want to emphasize that this disagreement is about one specific incident, and that I very much respect your contributions to this encyclopedia. Sleep soundly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen, choosing a username that is intended to make men snicker around women is an ugly thing to do. I'm sorry you don't agree, but honestly when I saw that username for the first time, I was absolutely astounded to discover it was a user with 8 years' experience. And that no one else was saying anything. I'd be surprised if it didn't make some other female editors very uncomfortable, too, and maybe some of them didn't object because it doesn't feel safe to object. Based on the reactions from other editors to a complaint from another experienced and well-intentioned editor about a username she found highly objectionable and at least slightly hostile, it clearly wasn't safe to object. —valereee (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

78.26, no, I wasn't considering administrative action. I was considering taking it to usernames for administrator attention for a discussion, and I'd have argued very hard there that this was a problematic username. When they refactored, and in a pretty nasty way, I took it to ANI instead. —valereee (talk) 11:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you!

Thanks for helping to upload the 'My Boy (album)' article! And also to add a good ref and colaborating, thank you! Chuklepedia (Talk) 22:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chuklepedia: You are most welcome, I'd love to collaborate any time in the future. Topics such as this are pretty close to my main area of expertise, if you're looking for assistance finding sources on something similar, let me know, and I'll do my best. Happy editing! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

header break

Thank you for welcoming me! David Gulliver (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David Gulliver: you are most welcome! I took a quick look at the draft you created. You need some sourcing that discusses the topic in-depth that is independent of the topic. I hope that helps. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Comrade Fabian Livinus (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Kangaroo Records

I just requested undraftification of the above so not sure when it will be brough back to live, but I found it an interesting albeit obscure subject and would eb glad yo have help with it. The label produced at least one hit so I thought it should qualify.

As far as Draft:Erika Brady I couldn't easily access the source(s) you out on talk. I intended to try harded but you know how things go. I can add ass cite(s) and resubmit. Not sure what you think is best.

And finally, I saw you posted on my talkpage but I had trouble finding where. You clipped something for which entry? Thabks for your help. Take care. Party on. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FloridaArmy: I'll see if there's anything I can do with Kangaroo Records. The biggest problem is that it is two articles combined into one. Unfortunately, the Encyclopedia of Texas History has nothing on Kangaroo or Hayes, and that was my biggest hope.

Regarding Babe Wallace, I was referring to the Draft talk:Emmett "Babe" Wallace

Regarding Erika Brady, I'll have a go at accessing those sources at my library. However, I won't be able to get to that for at least 4-6 weeks, thanks to some pressing Real Life issues (nothing bad or alarming, just life). Hope that helps! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It always makes me laugh that when I make a new article on a notable subject editors demand up and down that we find a way to merge it, but when an article covers two related subjects (a label and its founder) it's a problem. Go figure. Thanks for having a look.

Timeline for Brady sounds fine.

Wallace is definitrly notable. I will tale a look. Thanks again. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from WikiProject Articles for Creation!

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar & The Teamwork Barnstar
	Congratulations! You have earned The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar and The Teamwork Barnstar for reviewing 36 drafts and doing 76 re-reviews during the WikiProject Articles for creation July 2021 Backlog Drive. Thank you for your work to improve Wikipedia! On behalf of WikiProject Articles for Creation, Enterprisey (talk!) 00:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request To Help Edit Deleted Profile On Public Figure Page

Hi 78:26! Would you be able to help edit and publish this deleted profile?

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Dean_Fleischer_Camp_(director)?action=edit TheDirectorTab (talk) 02:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's ready for publication. I also don't see how the topic meets WP:DIRECTOR or WP:GNG. I also don't see where this topic was ever deleted. May I suggest WP:AfC as a route for review? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hi 78:26! I'm a little confused! Totally understand if the piece is not ready for publication but the person who is the subject is a creative professional with a public profile? So sorry if I'm missing something! TheDirectorTab (talk) 06:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDirectorTab: How do you define "public profile"? I'm not sure the topic meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which means the topic is discussed, in-depth, by multiple reliable sources that are independent of the topic. I hope that helps. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hi, 78.26! I'm so sorry to bug you and thank you so much for your help! Really! Looking at Wikipedia's notability guidelines, I think this person definitely qualifies. The work he has directed also have their ownWikipedia pages(here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Fraud_(film) and here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Marcel_the_Shell_with_Shoes_On)He's also been mentioned on this Wikipedia page (here https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Jenny_Slate). Also he's mentioned here in this article: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Lee_Camp_(comedian). I've also included these links and, in the article but I'm not sure if I'm missing something! So sorry again if I'm bothering you!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/arts-post/post/smile-video-by-marcel-the-shell-director-examines-how-we-say-cheese/2012/05/15/gIQApgpGRU_blog.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/05/movies/jenny-slate-marcel-the-shell.html https://variety.com/2020/film/news/dean-fleischer-camp-caa-1234765270/

Also! His work have also been discussed and cited at universities and museums. https://www.college.columbia.edu/cct/archive/fall11/features6 http://www.scienceandfilm.org/people/205/dean-fleischer-camp https://nyulocal.com/a-conversation-with-jenny-slate-and-dean-fleischer-camp-creators-of-marcel-the-shell-1e335e3e9c41 TheDirectorTab (talk) 04:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're not bothering me, that's what I'm here for. Just understand that I can't always answer quickly. Please understand that I'm making no accusations, but you need to be aware of our conflict of interest policy. If this applies to you, it doesn't mean you can't edit here, it just adds some additional rules regarding your participation. Oh yes, let me compliment you on the layout and organization, well done. Also, before I get to the meat of what you've presented, I'd like to point out that notability is not inhereted, so merely because he is mentioned as being a relative of a notable person does not mean the topic is notable. Now, let me do a deep analysis of the sources in the article, and those you've provided here.

1. "Meet the Shell" (penguinrandomhouse.com), in article. Clearly not independent of the topic, so does not count toward establishing notability.
2. "YouTube ‘found footage’ docs" (theguardian.com), in article. The Guardian is an excellent source, but the coverage here is slight regarding one of Camp's films, and has almost no information about the topic itself. This is a "casual mention", and therefore does not help toward establishing notability.
3. The "Marcel" YouTube video. Clearly not independent, nor about the topic. It's inclusion here as a "source" isn't appropriate in my opinion.
4. "David’ Review" (IndieWire), in article. This may count help count toward notability. It discusses the topic about (his writing style, his history), but not much, and I am unsure of the general reliability of IndieWire. Nonetheless if I were discussing this at an Articles for Deletion discussion, I would give this one some weight, particularly in light of WP:BASIC.
5. Variety.com, in article. Links to the home page and nothing else, and is therefore not at all helpful to anybody.
6. "Director Dean Fleischer-Camp on Fraud and Chicanery" (pastemagazine.com), in article. Based wholly upon interview of the topic, therefore not independent of the topic. Now, interviews from high-quality sources (think New York Times) can count toward notability, but I do not judge this a high-quality source, and the tone of the interview is to promote the topic's works.
7. I can't see past the paywall. The New York Times is of course a premier source, but it appears to be about the topic's ex-wife. Is there more than a casual mention regarding Dean, and is there indications that any statements made by the ex-wife have been fact-checked by the newspaper?
8. Rottentomatoes.com, in article. More about the movie, which is definately notable, but does not provide any information about the topic at hand.
9. Hollywoodreporter.com, in article. Another film review, which states that Dean is the director, and discusses his charachter in the movie, but does not provide significant coverage of the topic.
10. "AFI Fest" (screendaily.com), in article. This is a textbook example of "casual mention" regarding the topic.
11. "‘Smile’: Video" (washingtonpost.com), not in article. This one, like #4, gives some weight towards notability in my opinion, although it has scarecly little to say about the topic. If i combined this one with #4 I might consider it equal to one good source. There are others would disagree with me.
12. "Signs With CAA" (variety.com), not in article. This reads exactly like a press release, most editors would discount this towards establishing notability.
13. "Behind the Shell" (columbia.edu), not in article. This is a casual mention only, he is mentioned briefly only once.
14. "Dean Fleischer-Camp" (scienceandfilm.org), not in article. This is marginal. It at least has some biographical information, of the type provided by a speaker at a trade show. I'm not outright dismissing it, but it's not a strong source.
15. "A Conversation With" (nyulocal.com), not in article. Clearly another interview, not indepndent of the topic.

So that's my analysis. You've got three half-good sources. I do not think if the article was moved to mainspace it would survive a WP:AFD discussion. This is only one editor's opinion (mine). I have a feeling that the best way to describe this topic is Wikipedia:Too soon, in that I think notability is right around the corner, but it hasn't been demonstrated yet. Again, I strongly encourage you to use WP:AFC in the submission process, where you'll get additional input. I hope that helps. Happy editing! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soundies

Greeting 78.26. Thanks so much for your help on various entries including Draft:Tom Lemonier!

I come before you today regarding soundies. There are several issues. Perhaps the overriding one is that Wikipedia's entry covers on the Panoram style soundies but soundies appear to me to be a much wider subject that preceded and succeeded those. For example, the term soundies is used for films shorts clipped from African American Americam musical films. Another issue is capitalization. Thoughts? FloridaArmy (talk) 12:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FloridaArmy: You may be right, but films of any type aren't my specialty. Offhand, it seems a disambiguation page may be appropriate, with the current article as the main topic. The current article also incorporates some of these other uses. Did Panoram have a trademark on the term "Soundies"? How was the term "soundies" applied to the African-American sound clips? Were they clipped from the movies and then distributed by the Panoram system? (My ignorance clearly shows here, I know the artists and the records....).

Anyway, I hope to get to Tom Lemonier soon. I think I can do something with it, editing wise, and then I'll ask the previously-reviewing editors to have another look. (but I really need to finish my article on charlatan J. Charles Jessup first...) All the best, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting content from a deleted page to use for draft

Hi! I created a page titled 'Social and Political Research', which was subsequently deleted. Could you please help me retrieve the contents of that page so that I can re-draft it? Thanks in advance. --Michelle SPRF (talk) 11:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Michelle SPRF:, I see you've re-started the draft. It's not as promotional as the draft which was deleted, but your COI gives you blind spots. For instance, the article should not say in Wikipedia's voice that it is "objective". That is your organization's opinion, of course, but you need neutral third parties to make such a statement. Because it is so blatantly promotional, I'm rather disinclined to restore the material, but I will further consider doing so if you can give me a specific reason you need access to the material. Far better to work with what you currently have.

Because of your COI, please do not move your draft directly to article space. Instead, when you feel you have supported your article with in-depth information from independent, reliable sources, use the WP:AfC process, to let independent editors ensure objectivity. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@78.26: I wanted the deleted draft to go over what went wrong. However, I'll take your advice and submit the current draft for review. Thank you for your help.--Michelle SPRF (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Michelle SPR: I'll try to help out a bit. Every paragraph explained, in positive terms, what the organization does. It was written like a fundraising brochure, not like an encyclopedia article. Also, listing each board member, with their accomlishments, is entirely unencyclopedic. Don't use external links in the article body. It is appropriate to link to the organization's official website once, either in the infobox, or at the bottom of the article. All others should be avoided except as references. Remember that references should in general consist of reliable, independent sources, and that anything that is self-referential is ok as long as it establishes noncontroversial facts (date of founding, for instance), but these will in no way help establish the notability of your topic. I hope that is useful for you. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Oghema Niagara

Hello, 78.26,

I saw this page pop up on the G13 eligible soon (like next week) list and came to see if you received a 5 month notice about it and it looks like you didn't get one. You might want to make an edit to the page or move it or take some kind of action so it won't be deleted. Just wanted to give you a head's up. Hope you are well. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: thank you! Doing well, busier than ever in RL. I truly appreciate the advance notice, usually I get a notification while I'm offline, and find it has been deleted. Of course, I get to "cheat" in ways the average editor can't. Anyway, there's a new academic book published on the subject, which is complicated and misrepresented, will turn into a significant article, and frankly I approach it with some trepidation, hence some procrastination..... But hope you're doing well, and thank you for all the fantastic volunteer work you do here. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revision delete request

Hello, I have accidentally enclosed my age on my userpage. I have since deleted it, however my history page still shows the revision. I would like for you to remove and suppress the revision, as I am a minor and prone to creeps trying to find someone's personal information. Please delete it, ASAP.--Pink Saffron (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pink Saffron:

Done 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:78rpm

Hello, 78.26. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "78rpm".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, 78.26,

It's always a little awkward when I see Twinkle sending one of these notifications to a long-time editor. Once again, Firefly Bot didn't warn you (what is up with that bot?). Needless to say if you want to start back up on this draft you can restore it yourself. Hope all is well with you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Many thanks for the thoughtful note. Too many things on the burner, I'm gonna let this sit, when I'm ready to work on this one I'll "cheat" and restore it myself, Oghema first. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For being G rated. I didn't even know admins who didn't swear existed as most of the ones I've seen are perfectly fine with using swear words. I myself try and avoid them wherever possible (and I do tell people that I don't like swearing although I do still say that they are free to swear if they want). ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaze The Wolf: Hey, some of my friends are as blue as can be! And unfortunately what goes through my mind and what I choose to type are different things entirely. And probably sometime in the future I'll just lose it and.... Anyway, I try. Thanks for the kind words, Blaze, and happy editing! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Although I don't know what "some of my friends are as blue as can be" means ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry for being opaque. Maybe I'm old, but that is a reference to "off-color" talk, i.e. "turning the air blue" which means profuse swearing, according to Wikipedia. All the best, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Tom Lemonier has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Tom Lemonier. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 04:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for J. Charles Jessup

On 14 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article J. Charles Jessup, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that American evangelist J. Charles Jessup was called "The Great Gaspy"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/J. Charles Jessup. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, J. Charles Jessup), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling manga (Someone changes it even though sources say opposite)

Hello I read both Naruto & Detective Conan sources in the list. Naruto Shueisha (official publisher) source says it has sold 250 million copies, Detective Conan one says "it has 250 million copies in circulation worldwide (including copies not sold)" Naruto should be above as of now. But User:Yujoong changing the order. He first removed Mangaplus/Shueisha source (most reliable source) Now both User:Yujoong and Creating User:Cosmo Sentinel changing the order everyday as they want. Can you prevent or warn them ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruderhymer (talk • contribs) 11:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruderhymer: - first of all, I have almost no knowledge about this topic area. I do see you are in disagreement with some other editors regarding sales and circulation figures, but you are both claiming your sources are reliable. This is a content dispute, not a matter of vandalism or adminitrative action, it's not my job to decide who has the better sources. Why is your source more reliable than theirs? Please take this to the talk page, and let other editors who have knowledge of the topic area help out, and maybe an amicable consensus can be reached. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)7[reply]

@78.26: - Thank you for the reply. It is not easy to find an active admin. I did as you said and took it to talk page but User:Cosmo Sentinel admits that Naruto source is the most reliable source but now he doesn't accept whats written in it and he uses insulting language even though I proved my point.

DYK for Montgomery Ward Records

On 13 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Montgomery Ward Records, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that you could buy ten Montgomery Ward Records for $1.79? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Montgomery Ward Records. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Montgomery Ward Records), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Amakuru (talk) 12:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Happy Adminship

from the Birthday Committee

Wishing 78.26 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!

-- Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 09:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing 78.26 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Best wishes! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Hello 78.26: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Merchandise giveaway nomination

A token of thanks

Hi 78.26! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk ~~~~~

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]