This is an archive of past discussions with User:DrStrauss. 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.
Hello @DrStrauss:
Some time back I have created page of Bobble Keyboard but what see that two IP user is intentionally editing and try to delete the page when I see the contribution section ofthe users they come to edit this page only no other contribution are there so please help me to proctect this page from edit war.
Regards Bullus 10:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello @DrStrauss:
Can you help me in this or I have to approach some other admin.
Hi Mattlore, I was using "user contribs". That will catch some unintentionally but don't worry, I'm going through them again in pre-parse to sift out the relevant ones. Thanks, DrStrausstalk08:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
]]}} with but that just transcluded "orphan" onto about 500 BLPs so I quickly did that as a holding mechanism until they're all in the draftspace and I can find out an alternative method. Thanks for the note though. DrStrausstalk11:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry. The ones I saw were still in main space, but I see that they are now moved too. May I ask what you were actually trying to do with the template text ? Eno Lirpa (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I heard that you redirected Iceman (character) to Iceman (Marvel Comics). I have noticed before that someone had redirected Iceman (comics) to Iceman (character) causing all the links to be fixed. I think you did a good there. Especially if someone comes up with plans for a pace for the Ice Man that appears in DC Comics to be made. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
ANI notice, but it's just pro forma, not complaining about you
Hey, I mentioned you at the latest ANI thread. I'm notifying you because of the mention, but to be clear, I'm not complaining about all the moves your AWB account did to draft space for the cricketeers. Those moves seem fine. Just asking for admin help cleaning up by deleting all the numerous redirects to those pages. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
OK, I think I see, you moved some to draft space, and then a portion of them (but not all) back to article space. I'm not asking you to doublecheck, I was just confused. I think my request at ANI is now too confusing; I think I'll remove it. Anyway, cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
In general, using AWB to find the offending articles and then move them to draftspace was a good idea. Unfortunately, you hit a heck of a lot of collateral damage. Some of it is stuff that we probably still need to work on improving, sure, but it went beyond the remit of the AN discussion. I'd ask that you pay more attention when using AWB in the future; well over 100 of those articles have been moved back to mainspace now; had you been more attentive with the automated process, this would have involved a lot less work. Sometimes semi-automated processes don't make things easier! Harriastalk09:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
The article isn't otherwise tagged, and 02blythed's sole edit to it was in 2007, five years (and a great deal of expansion) before GA status was granted. If you believe a reassessment is needed, then you need to decide whether you wish to do an individual reassessment and pursue the matter yourself, or have the community perform the reassessment based on the issues you've noticed that make you feel it doesn't meet the GA criteria. (You'll want to check WP:GAR for the factors in making said decision.) Either way, you would need to notify the main contributors to the article and the WikiProjects involved, so that they can work on the identified issues.
Dear DrStrauss, thanks for your comment and feedback. I have updated a bit the sources. However, I've read that magazine publications are considered reliable sources for products or services, which is the case with this page. As far as I was able to trace, the articles in Forbes and TechChurch don't seem to be connected with the company. They have proven as independent sources and their publications are considered reliable. Thank you for your time!
hi , i made an article for the artist please help me to prove the article and give me more time . the artist have many corporations with persian most popular artists around the world and also he made music and song for iranian popular tv show named "khandevaneh" . i mentioned all stuff in thr article with good refrences . mostly independent sites like radiojavan.com , bahadorkharazmi.com,honaraks.com and ...
thanks for your time
all the best. mahdiyar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahdiyaramini (talk • contribs)
Hello DrStrauss. I've been working through some of the items in the draft list and I think Draft:Aamer Brohi and Draft:Aamer Butt (cricketer) should both be deleted because there is no information about them in the normal cricket sources, other than the names which may not even be correct on a couple of scorecards. Something I don't actually know, never having worked with drafts before, is how to delete them. Is it via AfD or another way? Thanks. Jack | talk page18:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Been here twelve years and never seen MfD before. Oh, well. Anyway, yes, I do use Twinkle and I see that it uses MfD instead of AfD if it's a draft. I've put them both in MfD as they can't be properly verified. I think the names are wrong on the original scorecards, which isn't an unusual occurrence. Thanks again. Jack | talk page18:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Western Punjabi
Just FYI, when you move a talk page in a round-robin page move and suppress the redirect, please be sure to re-create the talk page redirect, such as at Talk:Western Punjabi. Otherwise you break links to the new page title's talk page. And heck, just about all page movers have done this at least once. Paine Ellsworthput'r there07:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Sondra.kinsey, as far as I can see there's no template error. The move request was unusual in that it was sysop move-protected which means that after closing the discussion I placed {{admin help}} on the request so an admin would do the move for me. Thanks, DrStrausstalk14:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
@DrStrauss: When I view the page, I see The result of the move request was: {{{1}}} as if a template was missing a parameter. I am not sure of the result of the discussion. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Thnakyou for nominating the article on Datuin for deletion. This article that has existed for nine years is a prime example of low quality articles on non-notable people that seem to fester in Wikipedia. Wikipedia needs lots of cleanup and your assitance on moving towards this goal is greatly appreciated. Keep up the good work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I've had some time to think about this mess now and have done quite a lot of work trying to clean it up. Frankly, the whole thing is an absolute shambles and it should never have happened. What you should have done, if you are so concerned about the quality of those articles, was place tags on them to request improvement (e.g., Template:Refimprove).
May I ask by what "right" you have perpetrated your "draftification" (what a stupid word) upon WP:CRIC? I understand the size of the WP community runs into the millions so I would expect a consensus ruling that directly impacts one project (and thus, by implication, all of them) to be based on a substantial consensus. Instead, I find that the great discussion at ANI involved a mere THIRTEEN editors of whom only SIX supported the motion to "draftify" those articles. Six. Of those six, two can rightly be described as inexperienced and, therefore, unqualified. So, four experienced editors are, by virtue of mass disinterest in ANI, effectively dictating to a project what they shall and shall not do. That is absolutely appalling. Are you a Tory, by any chance?
Then, when you came to do your "draftification", you made a complete and utter balls of it, as User:Dweller and others have already pointed out to you. Your initial argument was, in effect, to accuse User:02blythed of incompetence. Of course, it will not occur to you that you are guilty, and even more so, of the same charge.
Hi BlackJack, thanks for your message. I'm off to bed now but I'll respond in the morning (unless any of my talk page stalkers are willing to help out in the meantime). Regards, DrStrausstalk21:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Might as well respond now.@BlackJack: I hate to contradict you, but I'm more than happy to help clean up the drafts in question. I'm not going to rise to the rest of the polemic you've written other than to remind you that Wikipedia works on consensus and I never claimed a right to anything. The two things that I could have done better and wholeheartedly apologise for are:
The documentary film Filmworker that you rejected has shown at Cannes Film Festival, Telluride Film Festival, will show at the New York Film Festival at Lincoln Center, The British Film Institute- London Film Festival, AFI Film Festival and many others. Should I just keep referencing the links to to these festival announcements and more reviews. At what point does a film that is making the top film festival rounds, has been reviewed in major publications and will be distributed by major distributors become notable?
Hi Kedesk, thank you for your note. The draft is looking much better now, bear in mind that referencing as much as you can is always good for verifiability and establishing notability. I am no longer an AfC participant so I suggest resubmitting the draft and another reviewer will come along and have a look. Thanks, DrStrausstalk09:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Was "Sunderland, Tyne and Wear" ever an ambiguous topic?
I don't understand what you think you're doing by moving a disambiguation page to a title that was never ambiguous: Sunderland, Tyne and Wear. All this round-robin swapping is just making the page histories more confusing. You really should leave these more complex multi-moves for administrators to perform. Rather than saving administrators time, this just ends up taking more time to clean it up than it would have taken to do the move the simplest possible way in the first place. wbm1058 (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
move Sunderland --> Sunderland (disambiguation). You can do this without leaving a redirect behind since step 2 will just delete the redirect that step 1 created.
The thing with this move is that we actually want to delete the history of Sunderland (disambiguation) when we move Sunderland over the top of that (WP:Move over redirect). I think if the history is simple enough, then anyone should be able to do that (without even needing page-mover privileges). If you can't move over the top, then I think it's time to ask an admin for help. wbm1058 (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Wbm1058, thank you for your message. Yes, I was implementing the consensus from the requested move to make Sunderland, Tyne and Wear the primary topic of Sunderland. The tool I use to swap pages (pageswap.js) uses Draft:Move which is supposed to delete itself or something similar. Either way, it uses the draftspace as a holding pen and it malfunctioned somehow. I've tagged the page for housekeeping deletion. Regards, DrStrausstalk10:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I should reiterate that the above example is not a simple swap of a page A and another page B, which is the common scenario when the title of a single article changes, and the new primary name is a former alternate name that redirected to the primary name. As far as I can see from the existing documentation, page movers are only authorized to make this sort of move without admin assistance.
When there is no primary topic for a title, then there is always a page with (disambiguation) in the title that redirects to the disambiguation page at the base name. When something is made the primary topic, the base disambig. is moved over the (disambiguation) redirect, deleting its history. Think of this as musical chairs, where a chair has been removed, so there is no place to "swap" to. Going in the opposite direction where a former primary topic is moved to a disambiguated title, then we add a chair to the game, by leaving behind the redirect when moving the (disambiguation) page to the base title. Page movers should be able to handle the "chair-added" scenario, as it's easier to create a page than delete a page. Please ask for admin assistance in the "removing a chair" scenarios. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
@Wbm1058: hmph. I'm trying to get my head around that one! I am a page mover so I do have the technical ability to do it. Either way, what is the outstanding task now? Thanks, DrStrausstalk20:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
No outstanding task, for "Sunderland". I finished cleanup to my satisfaction. I'm not sure whether it's been formally discussed before, whether page movers should be authorized to handle this scenario. Might be worth bringing it up for discussion. We would need to get a consensus on the "dumping ground" for the "removed chair". I don't think we should be leaving behind disambiguation page histories on non-disambiguation pages. That's (1) too confusing to follow (2) too close to being the equivalent of a "cut-paste move". wbm1058 (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I looked at the history of Wikipedia talk:Page mover and couldn't find anything specifically addressing the issue, though disambiguation was addressed in terms of the sometimes significant manual disambiguation work that's needed when a topic is pulled off of primary-topic status by moving the disambiguation to the base title. Admins usually appreciate help with that, where tools such as WP:AWB and WP:POPUPS are very helpful. That's the "add a chair" scenario I referred to. So, I started a discussion on the matter at Wikipedia talk:Page mover#Page movers implementing a primary topic. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
The issue is not determining consensus. Even before the page-mover rights package was implemented, non-administrators without any particular rights at all were allowed to determine consensus, to some degree, albeit not encouraged to close the more difficult-to-assess discussions. Non-admins and page movers alike can request technical assistance from admins to implement their closes. While the page-mover rights allow you to close many more RMs without help, I'm not sure they allow you to close all RMs without help. The technical issue is moving the page history of Sunderland (disambiguation) to Sunderland, Tyne and Wear. Sunderland, Tyne and Wear is not, and never was, an ambiguous topic. So this is not a valid "round-robin exchange" of two synonymous titles. The whole idea behind page moving is to keep consistent page histories that cover the same topic. wbm1058 (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Jabir ibn Hayyan Medical University
Hi
my name is Taif Raoof and i working in it department in university.
i want to add university in wiki and list of Iraqi university
there is no info about this university in wiki so i added this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taif raoof (talk • contribs) 11:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
It's been deleted because its entire content was copied and pasted from another website. Please put it into your own words and make it neutral and sourced. Thanks, DrStrausstalk13:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Any reason you closed this RM after only five days of discussion? It is a reasonably controversial move as seen by two previous RMs with a different consensus and by this recent RM affirming the English spelling for that article. — AjaxSmack16:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
@AjaxSmack: I'm sorry about this, I thought it was in the backlog (RMC is all in one page and I was going through the backlog in reverse and must have missed the section headers). Feel free to undo the close and move if you want to re-open it. I'll check the timestamp next time :P Thanks, DrStrausstalk16:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm a bit surprised by your closing of the RM at Talk:Spot the Dog as "no consensus". The only opposition was from someone who had no evidence to support their view and did not respond to the subsequent comments from two supporters. Personally, I don't think that a single expression of opposition without providing any evidential basis in policy or sources should be sufficient to block a proposed move with two supporters that have clearly studied the issues more closely. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback on the article about Hans Joachim Specht. I understand your concerns about the references.
I therefore added a reference for Specht's achievements at GSI Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research and his time as scientific director. [1]
I also added a reference for Specht's contributions to heavy-ion physics and the research at CERN's SPS: [2]
I would also like to mention that Specht's work is published in peer review journals like Nature[3], Physics Letter B[4], Nuclear Physics A[5] and was cited >200 times. Please have a look at the Google Scholar results, too. [6]
Please let me know what else I can do to improve the article before re-submitting it.
Hi Lena Weitz, thanks for your message! The draft is looking better now but unfortunately I don't review AfC drafts anymore so you'll have to re-submit and wait for another reviewer. Alternatively, you can ask at WP:AFCHELP or join the IRC help channel for real time advice. Thanks, DrStrausstalk14:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
CS Universitatea Craiova requested move
I don't know how you came to this conclusion quote "you're requesting a page move for a different page".
CS Universitatea Craiova page it's about CS U Craiova and i posted the links from UEFA and romanian football organisations in support for the request move because on the team website they claim otherwise. Narcis90 (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Narcis90, thank you for your message. What you appear to have tried to do is request the move of a different page to make way for the move for another one... if that makes sense. You referenced two pages and both I and the sole !voter thought that the talk page you chose was the wrong venue. Thanks, DrStrausstalk19:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't have other page to move because the page FC Universitatea Craiova it's already named as it should be, but other people renamed some time ago CS U Craiova in CS Universitatea Craiova which doesn't have nothing in common with the reality. Narcis90 (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Not sure why you closed this.[4] The discussion was not "circular" since it had moved onto COI and paid editing, and it was probably better for that to continue rather than be shut down. Alexbrn (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Alexbrn, the user in question was on IRC claiming that you had harassed them. As I couldn't find any relevant diffs which suggested either paid editing or harassment I closed the discussion to prevent further upset. Is there something I've missed? Just seen your edit summary, agree. I was just trying to give the user a fair hearing but I was unaware that such a hearing had already taken place! Thanks, DrStrausstalk20:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Appreciate the intent! Paid editing is very tricky to address because of the hazard of WP:OUTING. I may raise this at WP:COIN but it would be good to hear directly from the editor ... Alexbrn (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I hope you like Stroopwafels! I really enjoyed working on the article about Ernst and if you hadn't nominated it, it would never have come to my attention. So thank you! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi there. Just a heads-up, I closed this discussion you started because it was clearly never going to pass. Don't feel bad about it, you are neither the first nor will you be the last person to suggest something that sounds like a good idea only to have it shot down by the community (happened to me more times than I can count). Considering how few admins there are, any proposals that increase their work-load without a really good reason will likely fail. You did touch upon something important though and might want to suggest improving the policy's language to clarify who can remove tags and when; WT:CSD seems like the best place to do that. Regards SoWhy20:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Dr. Strauss. You assisted me with a photo box/caption box on this page. I did not provide the correct details for submitting the picture regarding copyright and it was removed. I am not sure how to now edit it with a current photo and provide the correct information. Kenton owns the photo, all rights. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agapeom (talk • contribs)
Hello DrStrauss, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Backlog update:
The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!
Technology update:
The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225
General project update:
On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
Hi, thanks for reviewing my submission on CO-LaN. In response to the points raised I have simplified the text and added an additional reference. I would be grateful if you can look again and let me know your comments.
Hi StenhoBJ, thanks for your message. The draft looks like it could do with more inline references. A lot of what's not reference appears to be original research. I'm taking a break at the moment but I check my talk page periodically so if there are any more questions you think of please feel free to leave a message. Thanks, 82.44.109.252 (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC) (DrStrauss on leave)
10:58:23, 20 September 2017 review of submission by Sandyprinith
Hello DrStrauss! Thank you for your feedback on "Dr_Nalaka_Gunawansa". I'm new to Wikipedia and drafting the first page was a bit of a trial and error. I just wanted to verify whether I have created the inline citations as required before I resubmit the page for review.
Based on another comment recieved, I relzed how I phrased the text may have given the wrong impression and therefore have edited the content as well.
Look forward to your response.
Hi Sandyprinith, thanks for your message. It's looking better but I'm taking a break from Wikipedia (at least on my account which has reviewer privileges). I see you've resubmitted it so another reviewer will address any issues in due course. Thanks, 82.44.109.252 (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC) (DrStrauss on leave)
Human Rights Defending Association for Iran
If Wikipedia delete opposition pages, it is equal to cooperate with Iran´s Government and it is against Wikipedia's motto "Freedom of speech".
Please restore the page and tell me which section must to edit or review.
Barzi (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@Barzi: "Freedom of speech" has never been Wikipedia's motto. This isn't a place for promoting ideas. The deletion log includes the name of the deleting admin's account (I didn't delete it, I just tagged it), and the reason. Please contact them if you require a copy. 82.44.109.252 (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC) (DrStrauss on leave)
Thanks!
Hi DrStrauss (OMG stray Jimbo sighting!), thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! ansh66621:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
@Ansh666: no problem! I'm always happy to support suitable candidates. And yeah, Jimbo's protecting my talk page from any vandals whilst I'm gone xD 82.44.109.252 (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC) (DrStrauss on leave)
12:26:24, 26 September 2017 review of submission by Cobalt blue
Hi Dr. Strauss, I've amended the article you refused, adding extra references and am wondering if you are satisfied with the changes I've made?
Cobalt blue (talk) 12:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
@Cobalt blue: it's definitely improved but reviewers tend not to review drafts immediately on request because if that was common practice everybody would try to "skip the queue" for want of a better phrase. You're probably best off submitting it and a reviewer will have a look at it in due course. Thanks, 82.44.109.252 (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC) (DrStrauss on leave)
Message re AfC submission
Dear Sir,
You left a very short note detailing the reasons for rejecting my article
entitled Spyros rigos
The note read "probably notable but npov needs addressing"
Would you kindly elaborate on this?
And on a slightly different note,
do you believe that the published material I have supplied
is sufficient?
(I suppose this is what you meant by probably notable?)
@Lerounis: the draft contains weasel words which promote the subject without imparting encyclopedic information. For example, the sentence he introduced innovative training methods in an attempt to recover the "lost ground"... is problematic because it doesn't show why it was innovative. Generally, that kind of stuff is left out because it isn't neutral (that's what npov means by the way - neutral point of view) but it can be used if you give lots of sources which show that his contributions to something were innovative. The one you cited in that sentence didn't. By probably notable, I meant that he probably passes the notability guidelines for athletes. Thanks, DrStrausstalk17:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
09:04:33, 28 September 2017 review of submission by Iainmf
Hey DrStrauss I saw you'd rejected Draft:New Celeste yesterday. The word 'influential' can be sourced to citation 16: New Celeste - Best (Park Records), David Kidman, NetRhythms, July 2006 and 17: "Living Tradition CD review of NEW CELESTE, Best". www.folkmusic.net. Do you want me to link those citations to that word? And would it be acceptable to link the words 'highly regarded' (which refers to guitarist Graeme Duffin) to this link? http://rock-legacy.blogspot.co.uk/p/players.html and this link? https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Graeme_DuffinIainmf (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Iainmf, it's probably best to phrase the sentences in the form E described F as being "influential", while G said F was "highly regarded". To make broad statements about critical acclaim and so on requires lots and lots of sources so phrases like numerous critics can be used. Thanks, DrStrausstalk17:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi DrStrauss The word 'influential' is used in the brief summary about the band at the top of the page, wouldn't simply linking it to citations 16 & 17, which are reviews of our 'Best of' CD by two totally different publications, be sufficient? To have the brief summary refer to specific people commenting on the group would be a very unprepossessing summary. There are many other citations from different publications over several decades later in the text which provide further proof of the influential nature of the band. I can remove the words 'highly regarded' from the reference to Graeme Duffin and just note that he's a Glasgow jazz guitarist. Let me know if this is acceptable? Iainmf (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
15:15:11, 28 September 2017 review of submission by Kbelflower
Hi! Thank you for reviewing my submission for KJ Sanchez.
I'm having a hard time discerning which info on this page needs footnotes and how those are done (yes, I've looked at the how-to page and am still not catching on). Is there any way you could be more specific about which content I need to revise? This kind of thing doesn't come naturally to me and I'm desperate to get this page up.
Thank you in advance for any help you can give a newbie like me.
Hi Kbelflower, thank you for your message. Yes, citation format is a bit of a nuanced art but hopefully the following explanation will be suitable. Per the biographies of living persons policy, all claims made about a living person must be accompanied by an inline citation. What you have done is used a hybrid system of inline external links (the numbers with an arrow after them - this is usually avoided), and a bibliography. Hybrid systems are fine but you need to use citation templates such as this one. You should see a citation dropdown box or toolbar when editing which will bring up a step-by-step pop-up. This may also be helpful, I think the page you were referring to was this. Thanks, DrStrausstalk17:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
@Thmazing: I wouldn't worry too much about DrStrauss, I'd worry more about finding sources for the new article before it ends up being nominated for deletion. Nick (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
You denied the page Clean Energy Economy on the basis that it was a neologism. I am the author of that page and wish to establish additional credibility.
I did provide coverage in the New York Times and Seattle Times, and also from the European Statistical Agency - none of these are promoters of the concept.
What else is needed?
I would like to report that editor IbrahimWeed moved the article 1991 uprisings in Iraq to 1991 Iraqi coup d'état attempt without discussion, just a month after finding no support for his previous move attempt on the article's talk page, nor providing any sources for the move. Also, in the previous discussion, the editor expressed a desire to move the article based on his personal opinion of the conflict. He also has a history of making undiscussed and unsourced move attempts based on his personal opinion, like with Iraqi Civil War (2014–present), where he was reverted two times and found overwhelming opposition on the talk page to his actions. He has also moved Hawija offensive (2017) to Battle of Hawija (2017–present), again without discussion and despite sources mostly referring to the operation as an offensive and not a battle. Both moves should be reverted and the editor should be made aware that he should rather engage in discussions on the talk pages instead of making unilateral moves, as well as providing sources for any future moves. EkoGraf (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
@EkoGraf: I suggest you report this at WP:ANI as the point of view editing on the other user's part may require administrative action. You can ping me there using {{ping|DrStrauss}}. As the articles in question are about a potentially contentious issue, even though I would only be implementing consensus, I think it is best for someone with the mop to do it. Regards, DrStrausstalk19:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
@Dlohcierekim: not sure, the page requires a log-in but it is a site where academic papers are published so I think it's safe to assume that reputable papers will not plagarise Wikipedia. DrStrausstalk11:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
"But honestly, Monica. The internet is public domain." --Griggs. This is why you will be loved more than feared. You see the good in others. Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
The book "plagarised" Wikipedia but it did credit Wikipedia and me in the credits section. The book is also licensed CC by SA 3.0, a fact which Wikipedia editors would have learnt had they bothered to look at the actual book. Would be great if Wikipedia editors actually looked through the book instead of making assumptions - especially when the paywall-free URL for the full book in PDF was included in the Speedy Deletion request. It's lucky that Google had a cache of the original Wikipedia page so I could recreate it. Now because the original Wikipedia page was deleted and the history of the page lost, it looks like we're the loosers who copied the book because the original audit trail of creation and edit dates is gone.
You declined Draft:SS Puerto Rican, major maritime and enviromental disaster giving the reason "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. ". But there appears to be a reliable source. I'm accepting the article, under the title SS Puerto Rican.
You declined Draft:Pamarco as "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. " Actualy, there was a much worse problem: it was an advertisement. I nominated it for speedy deletion and another admin has deleted it. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
@DGG: thanks for that. I would consider the former to be a questionable pass of WP:GNG and the latter to be a matter of ideological interpretation of WP:G11 which has been played out between AfC reviewers multiple times.
On a separate note, please can you explain this? Your edit summary assumes I have not searched for sources when I actually had. I've taken it to AfD now but in future unless you can find a reliable source yourself (as you did with the first draft), please don't decline speedies for whimsical reasons. DrStrausstalk14:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I personally agree with the decline of SS Puerto Rican. AfC needs to have high standards so that NPP doesn't have to clean up that type of thing (or leave it be, as the trend seems to be now). RileyBugz会話投稿記録16:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
As for the ship, AfD will decide. I think it has a reasonable chance, but it needs discussion. I agree it may not hold.
When you search, it helps to say so, and to say what you searched. I do not assume that searches are adequate,eparticularly for subjects that might have non-mainstream sources (consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuzhny Rabochy). I not consider it whimsical to remove speedies from possible notable subjects that might need specialist attention. DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I think that it will hold at AfD, and that is the problem. Without AfD, it is highly unlikely that anybody will consider fixing it. And in the meantime, we have an article that shouldn't really be in the mainspace sitting in the mainspace. RileyBugz会話投稿記録17:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
@DGG: due to the clear-cut nature of speedy deletion (strict criteria) it is impossible to say you have executed a search for sources because there is no box in which you can put it! It's on the administrator handling the request to corroborate the claim made by the user placing the tag (otherwise CSD would be obsolete) - something you didn't do. DrStrausstalk18:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Request on 23:29:40, 1 October 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Ian.T.Ross
Hi Ian.T.Ross, I'll take a look at it in due course, AfC reviewers tend not to review drafts on-demand because they'd get an influx of a few thousand requests on their talk pages! Thanks, DrStrausstalk19:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Xxanthippe, It's not improper for the nominator to withdraw their own AfD if they change their mind. Strauss had every right to close the AfD given the IP's improvement of the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk)22:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
The nominator can withdraw at any time but whether they can close an AfD is another matter. Other editors may wish to express their views. Please cite policy. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC).
To withdraw one's own AfD is to close it. To cite policy per your request, The AfD nominator can withdraw the nomination and close a discussion as speedy keep reason #1. Next time you insist someone is wrong, you may want to be sure you have read the policy first. ♠PMC♠ (talk)23:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation. The policy you quote reads The AfD nominator can withdraw the nomination and close a discussion as speedy keep reason #1, if all other viewpoints expressed were for Keep and doing so does not short-circuit an ongoing discussion. There had been no time for an on-going discussion to develop so the conditions for the policy to be operative were not met. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC).
There had been no time for an on-going discussion to develop: how can an early withdrawl short-circuit a discussion that hadn't had time to develop? There was no ongoing discussion to short-circuit. There was a nom, then an improvement, then a decision by the nom that he no longer believed his rationale was appropriate. You can disagree with his decision, but it's unfair of you to say that it's improper. It was perfectly within policy. ♠PMC♠ (talk)03:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
What a mess. This was a completely legitimate close by the nominator, in line with AFD norms and policy. Xxanthippe, if you disagree with the result you need to start a new AFD discussion, not try and reopen this one. I'm going to remove the admin-help template from the AFD (since there's no admin action required here), along with the post-close !vote; please start a new AFD if you still feel the page warrants deletion. Yunshui雲水14:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
09:41:07, 3 October 2017 review of submission by JaxLax
We are trying to get published the Peter's Railway page and it keeps getting declined due to insufficient notable citations.
Are you able to give me some advise how to resolve this. The series of books is now well established in the market place as an educational tool and enjoyment, the references that we have already placed in the article are all independent and demonstrate how well received they are. Additionally the page shows how much the author does in promoting engineering and STEM in addition to the books.
I have set up a new user name as the previous Peter's Railway username was blocked so please contact me on the above account JaxLax
I look forward to hearing from you for some advise so we can be accepted
Just as a note, if you come across something that's a blatant copyvio, it's often a good idea to check the history. In the case of Panorama Antennas, it was a recent edit that can easily be reverted (followed up by a revdel request). While most admins won't delete without checking, sometimes it doesn't happen, and it would be a shame to have a valid article deleted due to one bad edit. Primefac (talk) 12:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I have changed some of my comments in AFD discussions, because you took exception to them. I did not mean to imply that you are being deliberately racist, but still have concerns about the way that you seem to target articles about the non-Western world for deletion nomination, and to hold them to much stricter standards than those that are generally accepted for Western topics. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for that, for what it's worth I'm not targeting non-Western articles, it's just that there are lots of them in the February 2009 orphans category which I and a few other users are working on. If you look at my PROD log you'll find that I give equal preference in terms of policy. DrStrausstalk19:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
21:52:00, 3 October 2017 review of submission by Byrd.gyrl
Hi there, would you mind please reviewing again. I had copied and pasted from a web page. As I am a first time user I was not aware of the language requirements. It is all fixed now, would you please review again? Many many thanks! Byrd.gyrl (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
@Kbelflower: a cursory glance shows it's looking better but I tend not to review drafts on request because it would inevitably end up with about 1,000 messages on my talk page asking for a fast-track! DrStrausstalk11:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I have not fixed it because I was not sure if it was intentional. I will fix it in the next day or so if you do not do it first. -- PBS (talk) 11:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
@PBS: that'd be much appreciated because I've tried and reverted as it didn't turn out as expected (12. The issue is that the close tool does it automatically which isn't great for NACs. DrStrausstalk11:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Hey DrStrauss, I know you are on vacation but I wanted to give you a heads up. I had to mark the above image for deletion. The source link while CC also contains non-commercial and no derivative restrictions so we can't keep the image. Sorry. Let me know if you have any questions. --Majora (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind my commenting here, but I don't want to badger at the RfA and make things any harder than they need to be. You say "We all get angry at times, this was a few months ago and don’t think it is a millstone that needs to be but around Headbomb’s neck", and I completely agree. In fact, my Q4 was asked in the hope it could be put to bed and I could go on and support. It's not the anger itself I object to - as you say, it happens to us all, and it is in the (albeit fairly recent) past. It's the refusal to face up to it that's the problem - and doubling down by just digging his heels in, still blaming everyone else for it, and repeating his unfounded accusations is absolutely not something acceptable from an admin candidate in my view. It's that response that makes me oppose, not the original anger. Had I seen something like "Yes, that was bad, I really shouldn't have reacted that way", I'd probably be in the Support section now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
But the problem is that admins are supposed to follow community consensus. Thus, there is a concern that they will do things that are against community consensus, as they have a record of not really admitting their mistakes fully and continuing to argue that they were write. RileyBugz会話投稿記録20:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
From a policy perspective, correct, but I think that the actual content dispute was settled in his favour. Maybe the way he went about it was incorrect but my minimal interaction has been positive and as far as I can see it's just a flare-up. DrStrausstalk20:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
South Vietnam Air Force RM close
I question your closure of the RM at Talk:South Vietnam Air Force. A procedural close after weeks of input by numerous users seems a waste of everyone's time. You stated that the "nomination could do with being bundled or at least be renominated with a more detailed rationale". The move in question was to make this article title consistent with other similar articles' titles; thus, there is nothing to bundle. As far as a more detailed rationale goes, I feel the policy rationales (WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:PRECISION) along with some stats were sufficient. Should I proceed with a move review? — AjaxSmack02:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
You closed the discussion on Talk:Anglican–Roman_Catholic_dialogue. This discussion opened within shortly after a prior move discussion with other result. You appear to have done so despite an urge to give it some more time. We were waiting since a few hours ago for WP:3O to arrive. Did you consider the arguments for the qualification of WP:Article name considerations that were part of the discussion or did you just make a voting count? Furthermore, did you at least give a brief look at the invoked equivalent 2009 discussion Talk:Catholic_Church/Archive_34#Requested_Move? Thanks. Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary to reopen it. There was a strong consensus to move. I was initially against the move, but sometimes you just have to move on. It was a good close, DrStrauss. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
WP:PROF
You declined Draft:Frank Jotzo for not showing notability with independent sources. That applies to the GNG, but the relevant guideline here would be WP:PROF, which does not require them. Ut is importantto give new contributors the right advice. DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
@DGG: but you yourself don't think it's in an acceptable state for the mainspace (link). AfC is supposed to have higher standards to ensure something won't get deleted at AfD. DrStrausstalk14:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
DrStrauss talk 12:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
