Jump to content

User talk:SoWhy/Archive 28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30→Archive 33

Wikipedia:IGNORINGATD

Hi,

I've just come across this (how long has it been there? I don't think I've seen it before) and it seems a perfect explanation for how WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply to A7 (which is ironic seeing as it's also part of WP:ATA). However, as you've pointed out, WP:ATA is an essay (but let's be realistic, it's an essay in name only: most of it is treated as guideline or even policy) and only applies to XfD, not CSD. This would seem to be a loophole that can be exploited to CSD an article with merge/redirect targets without explaining why it shouldn't be merged or redirected instead. A7ing pages per WP:NOTINHERITED certainly seems to me like WP:IGNORINGATD (in spirit at least). I'm wondering if this could be worked into WP:CCSI? Adam9007 (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the need. WP:ATD is part of WP:DEL, not WP:AFD, so it applies to any form of deletion and WP:CSD already contains the language Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, reverted to a better previous revision, or handled in some other way. If people ignore those policies, adding further information to an essay won't stop them. Also, CCSI is meant as a collection of common claims of significance or importance, not a general speedy or A7 essay. That's what for example WP:A7M is for which contains the advice already. Regards SoWhy 10:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, what I meant is that is WP:ATA only applies to XfD, and WP:IGNORINGATD is part of WP:ATA, people will think that it's okay to ignore WP:ATD at CSD or PROD (I know that is not the case, but it's what people will think). It may not stop people ignoring it, but it may raise awareness, which is never a bad thing surely? I mean, it's one thing to ignore it, but quite another (in my book at least) to say (or otherwise imply) that WP:ATD (or at least it applying to CSD) is something I've just made up (which, believe me, people have done). When it comes to deletion, the number of policies we have that are so in name only (sorry to say, but I think WP:ATD is one of them: far too often I see it simply ignored, both at CSD and at XfD, for it for genuinely be policy by our definition of the term) is astounding. Not everyone actually reads the policies and guidelines from beginning to end. Take WP:BLPPROD: the number of people I've had insisting it means no reliable sources, or that it does apply to non-biographies that happen to contain biographical content and the way they do it seriously make me question if they have actually read it at all. And when I point it out, they often try to make excuses, like saying another rule is more important (in the case of WP:BLPPROD, that other rule is usually WP:BLP. In the case of A7, it's usually a notability guideline (policy?) or a section thereof), and that by enforcing rule A, I'm breaking the more important rule B. Makes rule A kind of pointless doesn't it? Adam9007 (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
As I said, I understand your frustration. I just don't see how adding this to CCSI will change anything. Those people you mention will likely not be moved by any essay if they ignore policy already. Regards SoWhy 19:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, In editing the page for Golden Lotus (musical) I found a lot of written sources referencing George Chiang and his works. Please allow me to edit the page for George Chiang with sources for his acting, musical and book. Would you also please allow me to edit the page for his book The Railroad Adventures of Chen Sing as I found a few other written sources that weren't on the Wikipedia article for it earlier. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John99Wick (talk • contribs) 00:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Here are some sources I found on George Chiang that I can include regarding his acting career. There are more as he has a lot of credits and it will take time to uncover them but here are a few articles I found : http://nowtoronto.pressreader.com/now-magazine/19930114, Railroad Direct, NOW Magazine, January 14, 1993 http://nowtoronto.pressreader.com/now-magazine/19931021, Donnelleys Dynamite, NOW Magazine, October 21, 1993 "A theatrical bat out of hell". Toronto Star, October 14, 1993. There are more articles about his acting and I will find them and added if given the chance.

There were several more articles more from his musical Golden Lotus that I already added to the Golden Lotus (musical) article you allowed me to work on that I would also include. Unlike BearTalk says most of those sources are very reputable. The Facebook posts are posts of articles that were from solid sources but no longer online. I used them as links so you can see the actual article as opposed to just writing when and were it was printed. if the links are not suitable I can take them down but I should still site the sources. The articles from The Standard, Sing Pao, and Weipao are very credible sources in Hong Kong. The former is the top English language newspaper in Hong Kong. the other two are two of the top if not THE top Chinese dailies in Hong Kong. In my opinion Maddbuzz is also a credible source and I found an additional one that I added to the Golden Lotus article

I found another article about his book The Railroad Adventures of Chen Sing that sites the book award and discusses that book https://www.keremeosreview.com/news/award-winning-book-inspired-by-cawton-mans-stories/ I also found a new review: https://readersfavorite.com/book-review/the-railroad-adventures-of-chen-sing And the book won another award recently. I think just last week or the week before: A Readerkid Views 2018 Reviewers Choice Award http://readerviews.com/2017-2018-literary-award-winners http://readerviewskids.com/reviewchiangtherailroadadventuresofchensing the award adds to the argument that it could be considered notable even though no articles about him winning this award have come out yet because it has only recently been awarded. John99Wick (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Golden Lotus (musical)

Hi, I would like to repost the article for Golden Lotus (musical) with revisions and additional sources that should make it appropriate for Wikipedia. It seems that the editors of that page didn't use a lot of the source materials out there. I will rectify that in the new version of the page with your approval.John99Wick (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@John99Wick: Fine by me. I have restored the page into user space at User:John99Wick/Golden Lotus (musical) where you can work on it. I suggest you add the template {{submit}} to it when you are done to get someone experienced to review it before it's moved back to the main article space, else it might be deleted quickly again. Regards SoWhy 18:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
User:John99Wick, User:SoWhy - I have reviewed the revised draft of Draft:Golden Lotus (musical). On the one hand, I don't see much change between the current draft and the deleted version. On the other hand, I think that the current draft satisfies notability -- and so the deleted version satisfied notability, and, in my opinion, was wrongly deleted due to "train wreck". I have also read the deletion discussion, and it focused on the biography of a living person of the composer, not on the musical. So my question is whether you, the closer, are willing to reconsider the close as it applies to the musical. Otherwise the choices are that someone can request deletion review, or someone can ignore all rules and accept the musical, but the latter would essentially ignore the deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
By the way, I was about to file a request for deletion review, but it says to discuss with the closing administrator. So here I am. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

in working on the Golden Lotus (musical) article I found many articles about the composer George Chiang and about his book The Railroad Adventures of Chen Sing to establish notoriaty. I can also work on those two article if you allow me. I will edit the pages so that only information that comes from reliable sources appears in both articles. John99Wick (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon and John99Wick: In closing an AFD, I can only access the consensus that exists. DRV cannot change that (cf. WP:DRVPURPOSE). I see your point re. the musical though, since the consensus regarding it is weaker than regarding the composer, thus I can accept to considering this part as WP:SOFTDELETE instead (which allows restore by any other like PROD does). However, I suggest you first consult with the AFD's nominator as well since otherwise they are likely to renominate it for deletion. Regarsd SoWhy 07:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I contacted the AFD's nominator to inform him of my work on the Golden Lotus (musical) article as well as my intention to work on the articles for George Chiang and The Railroad Adventures of Chen Sing. Perhaps Robert McClenon can contact him as well.John99Wick (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

SoWhy, I have just deleted "Talk:George Chiang" again: 10:13, March 20, 2018 Shirt58 (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Talk:George Chiang (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page (CSDH)) (view/restore). It contained this text:
While working on the article for Golden Lotus (musical) I found more credible sources for this article and I am awaiting for approval to work on it to have it considered for reposting. In intend to edit the article to only include information from the sources and delete areas that aren't referenced."
In my opinion, this editor's comment may be in the form a valid Wikipedia:Deletion review request.
However I do note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Chiang is the only AFD about a person of that name, and that "Golden Lotus (musical)" was in my opinion correctly bundled in that AfD discussion.
What are your thoughts about this? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
@Shirt58: New sources are a valid DRV request. However, so far it seems that no new sources exist, as Robert McClenon points out for the musical. If new sources for the person exist, DRV can be considered.
@John99Wick: If you have more sources about Chiang, please share them with us and we can discuss whether to bring this to deletion review to get the article restored. Regards SoWhy 11:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

Here are new articles that I found related to George Chiang/Golden Lotus (musical)/The Railroad Adventures of Chen Sing.

I added 7 new sources to the Golden Lotus (musical) article which all mention George Chiang as well (they are listed below). Some of the links are from Facebook links because those are the only copies of the original articles I could find online. If it is better that I remove the links and just cite the sources please let me know. I understand Facebook is not an appropriate source. I believe that wenwipo, Sing Pao (one of the top Chinese dailies in Hong Kong, if not the top), The Standard HK (likely the foremost English language newspaper in Hong Kong) are undisputedly credible sources. the others sources are not as highly respected but credible in my opinion.

1.白健恩及鍾浩賢分別飾演西門慶、潘金蓮 Ronan Pak Kin Yan and Harriet Chung played Ximen Qing and Pan Jinlian respectively, wenweipo.com, September 09, 2014 2.身演出振雄風 白健恩生擒潘金蓮 He Was Born to Capture Golden Lotus, hd.stheadline.com, September 5, 2014 3.白健恩激情戲成重點 Ronan Pak Kin Yan's Passion Play, SING PAO, September 25, 2014 4.Review- Golden Lotus, the Musical", HKELD, September 13,2014 5.Woman Pursues Her Passion in Life and Dance, The Standard HK, September 10, 2014 6.白健恩主演音樂劇《金瓶梅》 獲《最佳原創作品獎》Ronan Pak Kin Yan starred in Golden Lotus which won the "Best Original Work" Award, Stars HK, September 8, 2015 7.白健恩主演音樂劇《金瓶梅》獲《最佳原創作品獎》Ronan Pak Kin Yan starred in Golden Lotus Which Won the "Best Original Work" Award". a1c1.com.hk. Retrieved 2015-09-08.

New Articles found about George Chiang's acting http://nowtoronto.pressreader.com/now-magazine/19930114, Railroad Direct, NOW Magazine, January 14, 199 http://nowtoronto.pressreader.com/now-magazine/19931007, Urban Donnellys looks at feuds from the view of street-level people, NOW Magazine, October 7, 1993 http://nowtoronto.pressreader.com/now-magazine/19931021, Donnelleys Dynamite, NOW Magazine, October 21, 1993 A theatrical bat out of hell". Toronto Star, October 14, 1993. (found on the Wikipedia article for Kimberly Huie which mentions George Chiang) about the same play in the Now magazine articles listed above.

I know there are more articles but it will take me time to find them and list them properly as sources.

New article, review and additional book award for The Railroad Adventures of Chen Sing: https://www.keremeosreview.com/news/award-winning-book-inspired-by-cawton-mans-stories/ new Review https://readersfavorite.com/book-review/the-railroad-adventures-of-chen-sing New Award - The Readerview Kids 2018 Reviewers Choice Award (Canada West) - the award was only recently awarded and no articles have mentioned it as of yet. http://readerviews.com/2017-2018-literary-award-winners John99Wick (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@John99Wick: Thanks for this. I created a deletion review in your name at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 March 21 and invited all previously involved parties there. Regards SoWhy 08:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Script..

Following the footsteps of SN54129's addition of yor's CSD script to his common.js, I too wished to change to your script, given that it's decline reasons were pre-filled and seemed more customized than Alex's CSDH but, on reading the script, I don't think that it can be used by any non-admin and neither does it seem to work on any CSD-tagged page, unlike CSDH.(It's probably because the script can be used to delete CSD-tagged articles at the same time too!)But, anyways, am I correct?!~ Winged BladesGodric 06:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric and Serial Number 54129: Neither of you should use that script. That was a copy I tinkered with back in 2009 and which I just forgot to clean up afterwards (did so now). Use the original script instead which now has the features I tried to add back then. Check User:SoWhy/monobook.js for my configuration (which uses User:SoWhy/csdreasons.js for the customized reasons). IIRC, the script works for non-admins by changing "decline" to "contest". Regards SoWhy 06:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm --Huh!! I'm discarding newer scripts to use un-maintained ones...But, SN is the one to blame this squarely upon:)~ Winged BladesGodric 07:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
That should also explain your problem, Winged Blades of Godric: You copied var overwriteDeclineReasons = true; from my configuration but did not specify var myDeclineReasons (which in my case is handled by importing User:SoWhy/csdreasons.js), so the script assumes you don't want the standard decline reasons but also has nothing to replace them with. So either remove the var overwriteDeclineReasons = true; line (to use the standard reasons) or define var myDeclineReasons (to have your own reasons). Regards SoWhy 07:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks.And, I sincerely appreciate your's looking for the reasons behind my partial non-working of the script.~ Winged BladesGodric 07:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
No worries. Feel free to ask if you need more help with it. Regards SoWhy 07:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I added the vacant fields to my commons.js, as directed and it's working like a charm! Again, heartfelt thanks:)~ Winged BladesGodric 12:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

my talk page on other wikis

thanks for the advice but i already know how to change my preferences, ....point is, i shouldn't have to

i revert all my talk pages as is my right, and i hate that people keep reverting my edits on the Italian wiki for no reason

end of the day i have no idea why these other wikis are bothering me out of the blue in the first place, or why they seem to have such an aversion to me reverting my own talk page when they add massive welcome boxes to it at random

i have no reason to want to be their

Tony Spike (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tony Spike: If you disagree with what other wikis do, you have to raise the issue there or, if this fails, at the Meta-wiki. Each community has their own standards and no single wiki can make decisions for another one. Regards SoWhy 12:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

thanks mate ...i will take a look their

Tony Spike (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Available shortcut

WP:SWAT is yours for the taking if you want it ;) TonyBallioni (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

You know what, why not? ;-) Regards SoWhy 10:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).

Administrator changes

added 331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG
removed Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news

  • 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.
  • The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
  • The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news

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.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Requets

Hello. Help more sources and expand the newspaper Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you very much.171.248.246.158 (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand. What is it you require from me exactly? Regards SoWhy 10:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@SoWhy, there are nearly fifty other editors probably asking the same thing. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 10:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for the info, I actually didn't think to check there. Regards SoWhy 11:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Notification

Your actions are the topic of an AN [1] Legacypac (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you plan on responding on that thread? I think it would be a good idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) We are not all in the same time zone and he's probably not even aware of what's going on yet. Adam9007 (talk) 03:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Ha! Give him some time, at least and maybe, check the last thread on my t/p. Hardly we knew that the matter would precipitate an ANI thread! ~ Winged BladesGodric 04:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
SoWhy's behavior at WP:CSD talk is what caused me to bring this to AN because they consistently push for looser CSD interpretations and make sweeping statements that suggest large numbers of pages are CSD'd inappropriately. If this is the standard they are pushing for they have no business handling CSDs. Evidently I'm not the only person so concerned. Legacypac (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification. @Beyond My Ken: My timezone is CEST, which Legacypac probably is aware of, thus starting a topic about me at 02.00 CEST will most likely not see my participation. I will read the thread and respond there once I had time for it. Regards SoWhy 06:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I properly notified SoWhy already. I have no idea in what time zone SoWhy lives nore have I ever calculated the optimum time to make any edit. Legacypac (talk) 07:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, my current time is explicitly displayed in an edit notice when editing this page for that very reason and I assumed you noticed that I am German and live in Germany but then again, I said "probably". Regards SoWhy 07:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Db-x1

Template:Db-x1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Easter egg needing hatching

Happy Easter!!!

Legacypac is messing me about. I asked him to promote a draft approved by two administrators but he messed up the URL of a source instead. I've fixed that - can you re-name "User:Megalibrarygirl/Jacinto Quirarte" to "Revised Gregorian calendar"? See your comment 13:34, 8 March. Thanks. 2A00:23C0:8601:9701:1CA2:8B49:7705:EC03 (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

While I am usually happy to help, I see no reason to touch another user's draft. Since it's not located in Draft-space but in Megalibrarygirl's userspace, she should decide about this. I suggest you ask her instead. Regards SoWhy 20:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. That draft about Jacinto Quirarte is a mess. You can see from here that it is a draft for Jacinto Quirarte which I cut and paste before I learned to move new articles into mainspace. I've been going through and re-merging the history of these old mistakes a little at a time. However, for some reason two edits later this happened. I guess I can just move it to mainspace, but now I wonder about how to preserve the history. Let me see if I can sort it out. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
LMAO... it was easy to sort out the history merge. I moved the page to draftspace Draft:Revised Gregorian calendar. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Stupid question

Is this meant to be on your CSD decline list? Adam9007 (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It's because I was hacking SoWhy's account at the time :p —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 08:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Sounds plausible... but thanks for the info, I fixed that. Regards SoWhy 08:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Deleted page

Hi, is there any chance that the Stephen Dure page can be restored?

Thanks. Reg Hill (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Reg Hill: Not without proving that he is indeed notable. All the coverage he has received, even in your recreated version, indicates that he is, at most, notable only for a single event, i.e. one of his sting operations which lead to someone comitting suicide and the legal trouble that followed. Considering the fact that this was a biography of a living person that also contained negative claims about a recently deceased person, we are bound to be extra careful not to create articles on people who are not notable except in a very limited context. Do you have any coverage in reliable sources that is not tied to this one event? (@ any admin talk page watchers: please feel free to add your opinions Regards SoWhy 19:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Two events, actually. The sting and the subsequent death of the groomer is one, and the recent news about Dure being summoned to court after claims of making a false statement is another. Reg Hill (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
It's the same event: BLP1E refers to reportage in the context of a single eventmy emph. Incidents that are contextually interlinked are thus the same event for notability purposes. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 11:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
@Reg Hill: From the text I assumed the summons were in connection with the first event. But I fail to see how being summoned to court makes someone notable. But I'll enlist someone to provide a neutral third-party opinion because as always, I could be wrong (pinging some admin talk page watchers @Ritchie333, TonyBallioni, and Anarchyte). Regards SoWhy 10:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
More info for what it's worth (about Dure's TRAP operation when Dure was anonymous) - http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/15110441.Southampton_paedophile_hunter_vows_to_continue_his_campaign/ and http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/15105412.WATCH__Southampton_paedophile_hunter_films_confrontations_with_alleged_child_sex_offenders/ and https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4488757/british-police-may-work-with-paedophile-hunters/ and https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/855454/Police-paedophile-hunters-vigilantes-perverts-evidence-video - Reg Hill (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)−
(watching) No surprise that the only papers covering the "story" are some of the lowest tabloids this country has produced  ;) (and a local paper, which, whilst not necessarilly being a poor source, does not generally have the readership required to make it a reliable source). I could be wrong, but I think that that would make it a non-starter? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 10:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Two more for what they are worth: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-42823104 and https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/suspected-paedophile-takes-his-own-life-after-being-caught-grooming-boy-facebook-sting-1664158 - Reg Hill (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RHaworth and speedies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Notability assesment

Hi, SoWhy, can you please evaluate whether Zascha Moktan passes NMUSIC or GNG?! I'm hindered by my inability to find and evaluate German sources.~ Winged BladesGodric 09:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Based on the content, she passes WP:NMUSIC #2 (multiple charting releases, official charts [2] [3] [4]) and #5 (two albums of notable label (UMG). Sources are harder to find, I can give you [5], [6], [7], [8] and [9]. GTranslate should help with those, they are all reliable afaict. Regards SoWhy 09:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks:) ~ Winged BladesGodric 08:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Archive 67

Hi, SoWhy. I recently read a discussion you participated in about CSD criteria and speedy deletion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 67. It looks to me like much of the opposition you had there with regard to the moving of articles to draft space and letting them be casually deleted in six months revolved around the belief that any article moved to draft space and then not edited for that long was probably junk anyway and aught to be deleted, and that statement may be true, but there is another side to that which wasn't discussed and which I wanted to bring up to someone: the ignoring of articles in draft space while waiting for them to go away because no one wants to deal with them, despite the author having submitted or resubmitted that article for review and waiting for the article to either be created or for a new decline reason to be given. This results in a kind of death by neglect of what may be a legitimately notable subject. Here is one example of this unfolding now (I am unable to track instances where the deletion has finally occurred, so please forgive me for not including links to those). The AfC draft was submitted and almost immediately declined; the article was resubmitted several more times, and declined several more times; each time it was resubmitted, it was quickly re-declined; the last time it was resubmitted, instead of another decline, it became ignored; my guess is that it will now be ignored until it can be deleted in six months as an unedited draft, even though the subject seems to have met all of the notability criteria and the author is waiting for the article to be published. No one wants to touch it because it has been declined so many times in the past, despite it now appearing ready to become an article and the author appearing to have addressed all of the concerns raised by those declining to publish it so far.

The draft might yet be published, who knows? And the AfC queue is, of course, egregiously backlogged. But given the swiftness with which each previous submission of the draft has been met with a decline (often within hours), but now having the most recent resubmission ignored (for five days so far), makes me doubt this. Death by neglect, if it happens here, might just be a rare one-off sort of thing... Except that this is not the first article draft I have seen languish in or be placed [back] into draft space and there to sit unreviewed, sometimes for months, while the author awaits publication and AfC editors wait for it to go away because no one wants to handle a "dirty baby." That strikes me as wrong. I am wondering if it doesn't strike you as wrong as well. Lets have at it (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The example you cite is not really a good one (pinging editors involved there as a courtesy: @KJP1, Gene93k, Crameraj, Winged Blades of Godric, Bkissin, and Gbawden). The first decline was based on WP:NPOL which includes "[...] members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature" (emphasis added). Based on the sources in the first version of the draft, it is clear that Negron is a "state Rep. [...] of Nashua", so he actually meets WP:NPOL#1. All the other declines afterwards seem to have missed this. But yes, such examples are one of the reasons I am critical of the current handling of draft space and yes, the WP:NMFD rule is often circumvented by letting drafts go stale and then deleting them per G13. My interpretation of policy is that any draft that contains sufficient information and sourcing that a potential AFD might not be end in a clear delete should be accepted but I also know that I am probably in the minority with this interpretation. Regards SoWhy 07:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Hmm....I'm not sure.Pinging Bearcat for his opinion and on it's chances at AFD. ~ Winged BladesGodric 08:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, the article as written really doesn't say that Negron is or was a state legislator. If that's really true, then he'll have a clean pass of WP:NPOL #1 if the article is rewritten to put the WP:WEIGHT of substance and sourcing where it actually belongs: on his term in the state legislature, rather than his status as a Congressional candidate. The comments and rejections have been based on the fact that it's written as a campaign brochure for an aspiring Congressman, while virtually burying any real indication of preexisting notability as an officeholder in the statehouse — if he was really a state legislator, then the article can and will absolutely be approved if it's rewritten to put the emphasis on that fact first and foremost. But the rewriting is necessary before it can be approved, because as written it isn't an article about a state legislator, but a campaign brochure about a congressional candidate which actually states no claim of preexisting notability whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Bearcat on this one. And if you look at my comments on the page, I specifically address this situation, saying:

Unless you want to focus on his work as a State Representative, which would perhaps be notable, being a candidate is not. Attempting to use "news article about PAC being formed around his candidacy" does nothing to establish notability, and gives off the air that this is advertising his run for congress rather than offering an academic or encyclopedic view on the topic. Wikipedia is not a "who's who" of people running for office. You may want to look at [ballotpedia.org] if that is what you are looking for.

The article looked to me (and still does) like a promotional puff-piece made to promote a congressional candidate. The anonymous IP user (who may or may not be involved with the campaign, and therefore would have to declare WP:COI) seems to conveniently forget this part of the narrative, focusing more on Negron's congressional candidacy than his work in the military or his work in Concord. Bkissin (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Which is kind of my point. If this draft were an article and discussed at AFD, people would likely !vote to keep the article based on the fact that the current state of the article is irrelevant if notability exists (WP:POTENTIAL, WP:NOTCLEANUP). Based on WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE, policy is clearly against deleting articles just because they currently have UNDUE focus or some promotional language. Basically, the question is: Why should we apply higher standards to a draft than to an article? As I said above, imho any draft that only suffers from surmountable problems should be accepted to expose it to more people to work on it because that's the rule we have with articles. I do, however, understand that this is a minority viewpoint. With ACTRIAL presumably becoming permanent and focus shifting on draftspace, this might change though. Regards SoWhy 17:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Based on how this article is written, the claim that he served in the state legislature is so utterly invisible that many very conscientious and trustworthy and respected AFC reviewers have entirely missed that it even exists. An AFC reviewer's job is to evaluate the article as written, not to independently reinvestigate whether the subject actually has a stronger notability claim than the draft is actually making. A big part of the point of draftspace is as a training ground for new editors in how to write and source an article properly, so we do have to hold draftspace pages to a higher standard than we would hold an improperly written and improperly sourced article — if all that had to be done to get an AFC draft approved for promotion to mainspace was to assert that it might become improvable to a properly keepable standard, but the evidence of that didn't actually have to be shown, then every draft about anything or anyone could always make that claim. And thus, we would always have to approve every AFC draft and AFC itself would be pointless. So AFC drafts do have to be held to a higher standard of actually stating and properly sourcing the correct basis for inclusion before they can be accepted in the first place, rather than getting promoted to mainspace just because there might be a stronger basis for notability than the article is actually stating.
And at any rate, even if an AFC draft about a notable person does get deleted for staleness, that still doesn't prevent the original author or somebody else from trying again in the future if they can do better. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the idea of draftspace as a training ground assumes that those going through AFC actually want to learn how to write and source articles properly. Which might be true for some. But many (anonymous users now and likely non-autoconfirmed users in future) are forced to use AFC because they are barred from creating articles in mainspace. Those users often contribute drafts for notable subjects but since they heard Wikipedia is a place where everyone can edit, they oftentimes have no interest in learning the ropes just for this one article and will likely leave after one or two rejections. Then the question should be: Is the project, which strives to be "the sum of all human knowledge", really better off when we delete a draft for a notable subject because it has not achieved a certain level of perfection and is located in the Draftspace instead of mainspace where it would be safe from deletion? Or should we not accept such drafts that can be improved based on the principle that anything that can be improved will sooner or later be improved? Regards SoWhy 13:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SpellForce 3

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SpellForce 3 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nomader -- Nomader (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SpellForce 3

The article SpellForce 3 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:SpellForce 3 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nomader -- Nomader (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Adopt-a-user Question

Hello! I'm a new user and found you on the adopter's list. Are you still accepting adoptees as part of the program? Coherbia (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)Coherbia

@Coherbia: Generally, yes, although with me, it mainly means having someone to ask questions. If this is sufficient for you, I'd be happy to adopt you. Regards SoWhy 20:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Wallace Worsley Jr.

Can you fix page for Wallace Worsley Jr. ? Ryan Pikachu (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ryan Pikachu: I can apply some general fixes but I need some more details if you want something specific. Regards SoWhy 06:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi could you look into this...

I feel an attempt it being made to bully me on Wikipedia (online) namely from User:Chris_troutman, on this page: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marianna251&diff=prev&oldid=836708061

It has started from edits on a page for Jeff Novitzky please see the talk page it involved me and User:Marianna251 it seems very odd that after I agreed with Marianna251 that this other person came into the picture not only issued me a warning but also reverted my edits, which we already have an issue on so I can only suspect it is Marianna251's friend, as she has already opened a https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:UserHerName_reported_by_User:Marianna251_(Result:_) both of these users have all of a sudden started joining together any advice/in-put would be greatly apprechiated thanks UserHerName (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@UserHerName: You were edit-warring and told to cool off. I see no "bullying" with this. If you disagree with something, discuss it and seek dispute resolution, don't try to edit-war to have your preferred version. I suggest you take Chris' advice to heart. Regards SoWhy 12:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks for the input, I will accept your recommendation. UserHerName (talk) 12:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

I've mentioned you at ANi [10] Legacypac (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Question for administrator

Hello. I am a new user and a while ago i adapted the german Version of Vaginamuseum. Today I wanted to edited the english article. When i wanted to publish the article suddenly this came up: Fehler: Diese Aktion wurde automatisch als schädlich erkannt und deshalb nicht ausgeführt. Wenn du denkst, dass deine Aktion konstruktiv war, wende dich bitte an einen Administrator und schildere ihm, was du versucht hast beizutragen. Kurzbeschreibung der verletzten Regel: Vandalism in all caps. I did not do any vandalism, i just adapted the text, cleared the structure of the content, addeded sources and embedded images...I posted this also on my Diskussionsseite, i am not sure if anybody will read this, there might be a problem with the copying of the suggested link. I also hope that i did not do anything wrong in contacting you here. Thank you --Pinkerry (talk) 09:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

For SoWhy's reference, this has been answered at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Vandalism_in_all_caps. Alex Shih (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SpellForce 3

The article SpellForce 3 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SpellForce 3 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nomader -- Nomader (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Dear Admin your help is needed

Hi Dear Sowhy i hope you are doing well, i am writing this regarding my recently created page of https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Chaitali_Das 

the article have all reliable news references like The Times of India, The Statesman, The Telegraph etc. and fulfill wikipedia criteria but still someone have flagged that for deletion - i admire your notes regarding "page deletion" or "new article creation" i hoping for a positive reply.

Thanks and regard Peakat (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Peakat: Since it is now nominated for deletion, please participate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaitali Das and explain to the users there why you disagree with the nominator's assessment. There is no admin action to be done here and since you notified me, I won't participate as an editor to avoid the appearance of bias. Regards SoWhy 08:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 27

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 27, February – March 2018

  • #1Lib1Ref
  • New collections
    • Alexander Street (expansion)
    • Cambridge University Press (expansion)
  • User Group
  • Global branches update
    • Wiki Indaba Wikipedia + Library Discussions
  • Spotlight: Using librarianship to create a more equitable internet: LGBTQ+ advocacy as a wiki-librarian
  • Bytes in brief

Arabic, Chinese and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

What does this mean?

Hi I'm confused as to what this is all about: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UserHerName when I thought everything was settled? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UserHerName (talk • contribs) 20:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@UserHerName: Someone thought that you abused multiple accounts, which is forbidden (you can see it still at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UserHerName/Archive). The check came back clean, so it was archived. No harm done. PS: Remember to sign using ~~~~ when posting to talk pages such as this one. Regards SoWhy 19:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah sorry I forgot to sign my post, that sock puppet investigation can't that be regarded as a personal attack? Because, I moved on and bringing my name into things I am not involved in is silly, yet when I suggested something it's regarded as a personal attack, why isn't good faith assumed? Why is someone allowed more leeway then a newer users, it's an unfair advantage being given. What can I do about this? Sorry, I can't find the sign button I changed some settings in the Beta and it's all looking terrible. UserHerName (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Articulating a suspicion is not an attack per se as long as the suspicion is reasonable. Another editor showing up at an article and making the same edit as you did as their first edit does seem suspicious, wouldn't you agree? It's not about more leeway or anything. If I started to edit-war on an article, was blocked from it and then another user turned up to edit-war the same way, I would probably be under suspicion as well. In the end, the best thing you can do is just to be the bigger person. Nothing is gained from escalating such small stuff. You cannot prevent some editors from assuming something, you can just edit in a way that proves that those assumptions aren't true. In the end that's all that counts. Regards SoWhy 19:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Cheers thanks. UserHerName (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Just going to pour my self a big glass of cognac, and let things go, maybe take a hiatus from Wikipedia especially since I have a lot a research work to do. UserHerName (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
@UserHerName: You do that. And if you do want to help out again, we have soooo much stuff to do Regards SoWhy 07:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Deleted Page due to Non-Notable early creation

Hi, I did some research on why There is no page for the seemingly Notable Music Group "$uicideboy$". I found that it was created here on Wikipedia very early in their career and can only be created by an administrator. I believe that the group seems notable enough to be on Wikipedia now. I was wondering if you could look further into it and possibly do your own research on the group. Maybe you can help assist the community in the Re-creation of the page. Thank you. 

CrucifyVenom (talk) 09:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
@CrucifyVenom: The protection is a result of constant recreations without addressing the problems that lead to deletion. Unfortunately, this is not an area I'm really familiar with, so I won't really be able to help with that. If you can prove that this has changed, I suggest you start a draft for a new article and edit it like a new article (I suggest reading Wikipedia:Your first article first and then using the article wizard for a step-by-step instruction). Once you are done, add {{submit}} to it and an experienced editor will determine whether it can be included. Alternately, you can post an entry at Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/Performers, bands and songwriters with sources you have found and hope someone else will pick it up. Regards SoWhy 16:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Chris William Martin (sociologist)

Hi, I replied to your message on my talk page. I'm fairly new to this talk page business, so I wasn't sure whether I should reply here or there? BubbleEngineer (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Adopt me!

I saw your open to adopting a user looking for help, and that would be me! When you have time could you please let me know? thanks!Recordyear (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Recordyear: Sorry for the delay. Generally, yes, although with me, adoption mainly means having someone to ask questions. If this is sufficient for you, I'd be happy to adopt you. Regards SoWhy 16:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of SS Lakeland

Hello SoWhy! A while back you assessed my DYK nomination for the SS Lakeland, and mentioned a few improvements that needed to be made. I have since replaced the photo for the recommended one, and I removed the long quote, and replaced with something I wrote. Could you please have a look at it? Best wishes:GreatLakesShips (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@GreatLakesShips: Most of it looks better now, however, the hook(s) still need better references than an webpage with unclear reliability (cf. WP:DYKRULES 3.b). It should not be hard to find old newspapers or books talking about the sinking in archives. I have access to Newspapers.com, so if you cannot find anything yourself, send me a message (I also strongly suggest you have a look at The Wikipedia Library, it offers a lot of resources for editors for free). Regards SoWhy 16:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok. GreatLakesShips (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Low Country Sound

Hello! Your submission of Low Country Sound and RCA Studio A at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Issue is with only some of the hooks DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Julie Carlson Page Deleted

Hello, You deleted the page I created for Julie Carlson. Could you please move it into drafts instead of deleting it? I will add more information and sources. Thanks, Ella

@Ejquittner: Sure, you can find it now at Draft:Julie Carlson. Regards SoWhy 07:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for responding to my adoption request. You said to ask questions so I guess my first question would be if you could take a look at an article I’m working on in my sandbox, and give me feedback! Thanks so much! https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Recordyear/sandbox Recordyear (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Recordyear: Judging from that content, I'd say this person is notable only for one event and a negative one at that. Our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy strongly argues against creating articles for such subjects. So unless you can write more about his work as a developer and far less about the arrest, this draft will likely end up being rejected and, if moved to mainspace, deleted. Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual might be a helpful read as well. If you are interested in learning how to write an article, I suggest you start with something less problematic. Wikipedia:Requested articles has a lot of ideas to choose from. Regards SoWhy 06:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You are correct. I was more focused on the high profile case part of it, rather then mentioning the more notable parts. I don’t think I can edit it while it’s in submission, but I will once it’s out. And your also correct on choosing a topic that Wikipedia already has, considering I have no idea what I am doing! Thanks Recordyear (talk) 12:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Recordyear: No problem. Submitting a draft does not prevent you from editing it though, so you can still edit it (it says so right in the notice). You can also always just remove the submission template from the draft and re-add it later. Regards SoWhy 13:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

List of YouTubers

The List of YouTubers is being nominated for deletion again. I don't know why. It's been nominated so many damn times. Take a look here. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 00:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!!

Thank You So much for your kind information. I didn't the problem. Thank You So Much!! LuckyRacerNP (talk) 07:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Low Country Sound

On 2 May 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Low Country Sound, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Low Country Sound operates out of historic RCA Studio A in Nashville, Tennessee? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Low Country Sound), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK for RCA Studio A

On 2 May 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article RCA Studio A, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Low Country Sound operates out of historic RCA Studio A in Nashville, Tennessee? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, RCA Studio A), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news

  • The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
  • 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.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • 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.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Clout from grandmas closet

Sorry, I missed the word "fictional"! However, Google turns up zero hits for that title, so I'm gonna submit the redirect for zapping. Largoplazo (talk) 09:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK for SpellForce 3

On 8 May 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article SpellForce 3, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that upon release, SpellForce 3 was so buggy that the developer had to release 21 patches in 14 days? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/SpellForce 3. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, SpellForce 3), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Sigh....

This's the precise example of process-wonkery, that one can gladly do without.Firstly, by all means the restoration was without following WP:RUD.And, secondly you are declining a CSD, based on a 2007 restoration.Maybe, you have got some grand ideas about improving the article......~ Winged BladesGodric 02:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni:, can you please peek into your magic-goggles and find the original creator of the article?!~ Winged BladesGodric 06:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Msemwall. Also, fwiw, I generally agree with SoWhy on this, though my reason for passing over the deletion is that I try to avoid speedy deletions of articles that are over a year old, as arguably they've been around long enough where it would be controversial. I don't go around actively declining them (I also don't do much CSD work as compared to my general activity level on Wikipedia, though), but I think this type of thing is an example of where SoWhy gets flak for stuff other admins don't push the button on but just leave the tag sitting. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Also, see the lone oppose !vote.Whilst, SoWhy is absolutely free to opinionate his/her stands on the issue in a discussion, continuing to act in manners contrarian to current community-expectation(s), despite being a super-minority, is a free-pass to attracting flak.And, I fail to make out about how this article has a significant history......~ Winged BladesGodric 06:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
And, 2007 were the days, when notability standards were ridiculously low and it didn't take much convincing to refund a A7.If someone makes this request, at this point of time, well.......~ Winged BladesGodric 06:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Also, TonyBallioni, whilst it remains a blue-link, don't you think it might be prudential to restore/hist-merge the prior revisions?~ Winged BladesGodric 06:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 Done: for attribution purposes. Anyway, sorry to interfere on your talk SoWhy, you know you are always welcome to tell me to shoo if it bugs you TonyBallioni (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: As the banner says, I'm always happy with talk page stalkers helping out (that's why I created that banner in the first place after all!).
@Winged Blades of Godric: Sorry if you feel me acting according to the rules is "process-wonkery". Wikipedia is a collaborative environment that relies and thrives on people acting together to achieve a common goal. As such, reversing another admin's decision - no matter how old - without consulting them first and without a good reason why acting immediately is required goes against my core principles. I know some admins think differently but I don't think any policy supports that. The way to WP:WHEEL is short from there. After all, WP:RAAA is policy and it tells us that "administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought, and (if likely to be objected to), where the administrator is presently available, a brief discussion with the administrator whose action is challenged." (emphasis added). I failed and fail to see good cause here to challenge Alexandria's decision and you have not really mentioned any either. This and nothing else was the reason for my decline here, though, for the record, I agree with Tony in principle that articles that have survived for a long time (here > 10 years) should instead be handled by PROD/AFD, since another week won't really hurt anymore (arg. ex. WP:SILENCE). Regards SoWhy 07:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I have to concede that I like your replies.....And, it's probably beneficial that I leave CSD-tagging all-together, unless some sanity and common-sense is restored amongst one of the main patroller(s).That you have manged to invoke elements of wheel-warring as a deciding factor in de-tagging.......Well, this discussion isn't going anywhere.~ Winged BladesGodric 08:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I just said that it's not far from reverting another admin's actions to wheel-warring. As I had previously explained, my approach to any area of the project is to try and err on the side of caution because I know from own experience that even the best intended actions might not be understood as such (you were not here during WP:NEWT afaik but just look at the controversy that caused and you might see what I mean). Erring on the side of caution might create some more work in the long run but in the end, it's imho worth it in terms of AGF and editor retention. Regards SoWhy 12:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
And, now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uttarakhand community web portal.I'll be keen to observe how your actions did benefit anybody other than to foster collaborative spirits with a legacy-admin.~ Winged BladesGodric 08:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Close at ANI

Why was this discussion closed? Seems to be obviously against policy to close both a controversial MR and one that definitely could not be considered clear consensus by any person that hadn't already made up their minds. A supervote by a NAC should be at ANI, not DRV. Dave Dial (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dave Dial: ANI is for problems that need administrative intervention. This was not the case. Policy is quite clear: Bad NACs are not to be reverted just because they are bad NACs and if the close was incorrect (because the non-admin was not able to assess consensus correctly), MRV is where to discuss this. Remember, ANI is for problems with user conduct, so iff you can provide evidence that Red Slash deliberately closed the discussion to advance their own point in bad faith, ANI is indeed the place to discuss their conduct and possibly a ban from further NACs. But if they just made a good-faith mistake (as it appears), then MRV can and should deal with it (with the addition of a WP:TROUT or two for Red Slash for non-admin closing a non-clear-cut RM). Regards SoWhy 16:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of SS Lakeland

Hello again SoWhy! I have recently been making some more improvements to the DYK nomination of this article. I have found a newspaper article in the LoC which described the sinking. I have since added another hook describing the sinking. Could you please have another look at it?

Thanks:GreatLakesShips (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@GreatLakesShips: The source and the hook look good but you need to actually add the source to the article as well, not just to the nomination. Ping me when that's done. (Re-comment to fix ping) Regards SoWhy 07:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I've added the contents of the hook to the article, and otherwise everything has been completed. GreatLakesShips (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

George Fred Tilton deletion

Hi, You quickly deleted the page I created on George Fred Tilton. I sourced my information from a variety of sources and I attempted to change the article you cited to avoid copyright, but perhaps I could have done more. I want to keep working on the article, you quickly deleting it makes it a lot more work to reformat the page and make it up to snuff. The George Fred Tilton article is important, as he is a one of the last whaling captains. Again, I will be more careful about writing my own articles in the future, I'm sorry. I have more sources to add to the George Fred article.

thank you,

CHILLYWILLY88 (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@CHILLYWILLY88: I deleted it because the text you used was copied almost verbatim from the URL I mentioned. Copyright violations are a problem for Wikipedia because it opens us up to legal attacks. You are welcome to write about him in your own words. I agree that he is likely notable, considering the amount of coverage (here are some more sources if you need them, courtesy of Google Books: [11] [12]). Regards SoWhy 15:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Guam at the 2015 World Championships in Athletics keep vote

You're usually spot on with your close decisions, but with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Guam_at_the_2015_World_Championships_in_Athletics, there were two deletes, two redirects, two merges and two keeps. That's not a keep. I'm not sure what if anything can be added to the article. The consensus was to not have a standalone article, in this case. I think this is the first time we've disagreed, so this is the first time I've commented on your talk page. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 15:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: Then welcome! As for the close, both "merge" and "redirect" !votes are arguing to keep parts of the article, even if it's only the title. They just disagree on how much of it to keep. So if you want to count !votes, it's 6 to keep something against 2 to delete all of it. As I indicated in my rationale, this "keep"-close does not mean that there is consensus to keep those articles as standalone articles though. But on the question whether to keep as standalone or to merge/redirect, I could not see any consensus, so the AFD discussion could only be closed as keep with the further discussion relegated to the appropriate venues, i.e. talk pages and/or WP:MERGEREQ. HTH. Regards SoWhy 16:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough - see you out in the AfD battlefield. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@Timtempleton: I think we should ping the relevant parties before starting discussions about this elsewhere. I can see an argument that there was perhaps no consensus, but I really don't think that the consensus was to not have a standalone article when no side had a clear majority. I strongly believe in removing cruft from Wikipedia, but I just don't think these articles are cruft, especially considering their potential to be improved. Please see my writing at Guam at the 2015 World Championships in Athletics fr an example of what can be added to the articles. --Habst (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
@Habst: In some instances there's a case to be made for a standalone article, such as with the lengthy US articles, but in this case I still feel with one person, Regine Tugade, in one event, who didn't medal, it would not have been wrong to redirect. I do however see an opportunity to add all the detail you added to the Guam 2015 article to Regine Tugade's article also - there's barely any mention of her participation in the event there, and if it's worthy of it's own article, her participation can be flushed out there too. No need to start a discussion - I'll just move on to other open AfD discussions. Cheers. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

AFD

I did not say selectively merge, neither I am withdrawing from that AFD, I will prefer a redirect, can you change the outcome to redirect, with selective merge from history (which I don't think I will have anything. --Quek157 (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I hope can reopen the AFD or else this I will take it to DRV as I never withdrawn officially. --Quek157 (talk) 11:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
@Quek157: I was about to leave you a message. Sorry if I misunderstood you. You said "Can I just do a redirect of this page then? (and perhaps close this Afd)", so I assumed you were fine with closing the AFD and just doing the redirect/selective merge from history. I would suggest you selectively merge whatever information you think is useful to the article I mentioned and then just turn both pages into redirects to it since both are likely search terms (see WP:SMERGE and WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT for more info) but if you want me to reopen the AFD, I'm fine with that as well. I just thought no more time for discussion is needed since uncontroversial redirects and selective mergers pursuing WP:ATD don't require a discussion. Regards SoWhy 11:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry this is my style for AFD, you can see through all my afd that I nominated, I will usually says I am willing to explore WP:ATD even if it is a balant lack of notablity, I will have no issue if the conclusion is "withdrawn by nominator, redirect to that page. Selective merge (if needed) to be done at history". However, I am afraid there is a notablity issue there, but anyway, hope the conclusion can be as above and the page will then be open to anyone who wishes to do a proper article, I am afraid the current state of article passing AFC might even be hard. --Quek157 (talk) 11:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I will rather a redirect than merge as there is really nothing to merge upon closer reading, all are duplicated information --Quek157 (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
@Quek157: Fine by me. I changed the wording of the close to reflect this, I hope this is what you envisioned now. As I said, I wasn't trying to steamroll you but merely wanted to avoid having an AFD that would most likely have ended this way anyway. I hope all is okay now. Regards SoWhy 11:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, this is my intention, glad to withdrawn this way. Will take this a good lesson and anyway, did a redirect of both pages to the proper part where all the information is replicated VDNKh_(Russia)#Present_day. Thanks. Even the picture is there too (so no need to merge the infobox either, the webpage is there also) --Quek157 (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Just to add, I added both names that are redirected to the target for clarity. --Quek157 (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Five9

Hi there, I noticed you erased Five9 from the Wiki. There were many complaints against it, I know, but I was going to revise and check them all. Is there any way to reverse this decision? I created a revised draft in my sandbox page that deals with everything other Wikipedians mentioned. Could you please check it and see if we can merge these two together? I followed what other similar products did and think it's a better version.

Thank you!

Dsalinasgardon (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dsalinasgardon: The Draft you created (now moved by another editor to Draft:Five9) still contains the marketing speak that led to the deletion in the first place. Basically, if a page reads as if it could have been a press release, it does not belong in Wikipedia. I would suggest that you wait for the draft to be reviewed by people more experienced than myself in these matters and if it's accepted, we can easily merge the old page's history if necessary. Regards SoWhy 07:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

why delete the English wikipedia page 'Michele Geraci'

To whom it may concern,

May I ask the reason why the English Wikipedia page 'Michele Geraci' was deleted? Given the four possible reasons, I am wondering which one applied? More importantly, how could I incorporate to have the page undelete.

Michele Geraci is recently projected by Italian media as possibly the next prime minister in Italy. Here are some news from Italian official media. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). https://www.agi.it/politica/geraci_premier_governo_cina-3896902/news/2018-05-14/ http://www.ilgiornale.it/news/politica/strane-intese-m5s-lega-premier-fantasma-1526252.html https://www.corriere.it/politica/18_maggio_03/prof-cinese-che-mette-d-accordo-lega-m5s-flat-tax-reddito-cittadinanza-insieme-a9c32206-4ed7-11e8-aead-38ee720fad91.shtml

I would really appreciated if you could reply at your earliest convenience!


星星 ！ (talk) 10:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@星星 ！: You can see the reason at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Geraci. All of the sources mention him only in passing or quote him (interview him) and none actually significantly cover him as a person. If you can demonstrate that multiple reliable sources cover him significantly, then there is a reason to reverse the deletion. Regards SoWhy 12:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


Hi, I am wondering if these sources significantly cover him as a person? Michele Geraci was reportedly on a shortlist of candidates to be named the new Prime Minister of Italy. The links below are the press releases of Michele for PM of Italy, thanks.

• Qianjiang Evening/China Education Net/People’s Net/Yuexi Net /Sohu/Sina /Zhejiang News/Xiaoshan/Haiwai Net 16/5 宁波诺丁汉大学一名老师 成意大利总理热门候选人 http://qjwb.zjol.com.cn/html/2018-05/16/content_3654413.htm?div=-1 http://zhejiang.eol.cn/zhejiang_news/201805/t20180516_1600604.shtml http://society.people.com.cn/n1/2018/0516/c1008-29992598.html http://ahyx.gov.cn/news/jj/gmxw/201805/362078.html http://www.sohu.com/a/231746818_119562 http://zj.sina.com.cn/edu/2018-05-16/detail-ihapkuvm6264519.shtml http://edu.sina.com.cn/l/2018-05-16/doc-ihapkuvm5833556.shtml http://zjnews.zjol.com.cn/zjnews/zjxw/201805/t20180516_7276658.shtml http://www.xsnet.cn/news/zj/2018_5/2920994.shtml http://italy.haiwainet.cn/n/2018/0516/c3543003-31316856.html



• The hour 16/5 宁波诺丁汉大学一名老师 成意大利总理热门候选人 https://www.thehour.cn/news/148808.html?from=timeline&isappinstalled=0


• Zhejiang Daily Wechat 16/5宁波诺丁汉老师成意大利总理候选人，履历华丽的他说过些什么 https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzA4MTk4NDMxNA==&mid=2649955271&idx=1&sn=bd6defff294de0633df066ad857a72a0&chksm=878b1592b0fc9c84e242c3d61abb810084deee8e3e85318eba036af5068a07d2b5dc74c78d17&mpshare=1&scene=1&srcid=0516C5iLLohHnIELkyN8PbyS&pass_ticket=NUO7mwZCSI%2FVt9ivt5gXCuaT7PNagDtwzLmd9vuP7JarLj2QfAOFoHFvr7bHdq14#rd


15/5


• Ningbo Evening 15/5 宁波诺丁汉大学一老师被预测为意总理热门人选 http://daily.cnnb.com.cn/nbwb/html/2018-05/15/content_1109204.htm http://daily.cnnb.com.cn/nbwb/html/2018-05/15/content_1109215.htm


• Headlines Today 15/5 宁波诺丁汉老师成意大利总理候选人 https://www.toutiao.com/i6555804881020518926/

• Zhejiang News App/Zhejiang Express/ China So/Netease/澎湃 the paper/Moohuu/Tl News/Hangzhou Net 15/5 宁波诺丁汉老师成意大利总理候选人，履历华丽的他说过些什么 https://zj.zjol.com.cn/news.html?id=940167 https://zj.zjol.com.cn/video.html?id=940701 http://nb.zjol.com.cn/csrd/cskb/201805/t20180515_7271377.shtml http://zj.chinaso.com/rd/detail/20180515/1000200033029721526358744916970819_1.html http://3g.163.com/news/article/DHRMGU57000187VE.html https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_2130627 http://www.moohuu.com/weijie/2018-05-15/148207.html http://www.tlnews.com.cn/xwpd/zjxw/content/2018-05/16/content_6341019.htm http://news.hangzhou.com.cn/zjnews/content/2018-05/15/content_7002364_2.htm

• Apocalisse Laica 15/5 CHI È MICHELE GERACI, L'ECONOMISTA PROPOSTO DA SALVINI COME PREMIER http://apocalisselaica.net/chi-michele-geraci-leconomista-proposto-da-salvini-come-premier/


14/5

• AGI 14/5 Chi è Michele Geraci, l'economista proposto da Salvini come premier https://www.agi.it/politica/geraci_premier_governo_cina-3896902/news/2018-05-14

• Yongpai(Ningbo Daily APP)/ China Net/Yinzhou TV/ Zhejiang Online/ Eastday/ Yuyao News/Ala Education/ Xiaoshan Net /cnnb14/5 宁波诺丁汉大学一教师，被媒体预测为意大利总理热门人选！ http://pi.cnnb.com.cn/yongpai_api/get_news_detail_html?newsId=2018051411245420401962&topicImg=1&type=qq http://zjnews.china.com.cn/yuanchuan/2018-05-15/141333.html http://www.nbyztv.com/folder50/folder52/folder67/2018-05-14/8864.html http://zjnews.zjol.com.cn/zjnews/nbnews/201805/t20180514_7263583.shtml http://news.eastday.com/eastday/13news/auto/news/csj/20180514/u7ai7707292.html http://yynews.cnnb.com.cn/system/2018/05/14/011863536.shtml http://www.aljiajiao.com/News_View.asp?ID=51106 http://www.xsnet.cn/news/topnews/2018/5/2920295.shtml http://www.cnnb.com/article-34052-1.html

Italian Reports https://www.agi.it/politica/geraci_premier_governo_cina-3896902/news/2018-05-14/ http://www.ilgiornale.it/news/politica/strane-intese-m5s-lega-premier-fantasma-1526252.html https://www.corriere.it/politica/18_maggio_03/prof-cinese-che-mette-d-accordo-lega-m5s-flat-tax-reddito-cittadinanza-insieme-a9c32206-4ed7-11e8-aead-38ee720fad91.shtml

星星 ！ (talk) 01:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi again. I'm sorry but I don't speak Chinese, so I cannot assess those sources. The Italian sources were already in the article and deemed not sufficient at the discussion. If the majority of coverage is in Chinese, you might want to contact Wikipedia:WikiProject China and ask one of its members to assess the quality of coverage. Regards SoWhy 07:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Doctor Who Series 1.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Doctor Who Series 1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Wcam (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • 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.
  • There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
  • 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.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Your Draft on Youtubers

The term "Youtuber" is definitely notable enough to be an article on Wikipedia and I think you should publish the draft once a bit more information is added to it because there is still some information missing such as a criticism section and different types of youtubers and styles of content. I've already added a bit of information to the draft and also added citations. Hopefully we can work on this draft together along with other contributors. 344917661X (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@344917661X: That's why I created the draft in the first place, to allow people to collaborate on the topic before publishing it. I'm happy for your help. I'm on vacation at the moment but I'll check the edits next week when I return. Regards SoWhyMobile 12:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Re Draft:Anna Delvey

Added a bit to your draft! Hope that's OK! I noticed "Her life as one of Manhattan's socialites has been covered prominently before and after her arrest." in the article, but I couldn't find any coverage of her before the "Wannabe Socialite" article about the court case in July. Thought it was pretty unfair this got tagged for speedy deletion and it seems pretty changed since then anyway, but not sure how to ?untag? it.—A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 08:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Altercari: I found some sources pre-2016 when checking GNews but due to GDPR-related blocks, I couldn't see them. I'll have to check again using a proxy. Regards SoWhy 08:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Ah right! On Google I could only find a couple of gossip blog mentions and nothing else. Never mind!—A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 10:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello

Are you accepting adoptions, I would like to be adopted, I need someone to give me advice if i get stuck. Saturnet (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Saturnet: Generally, yes, but I'm a bit swamped at the moment and can't really offer much advice or at least not in a timely manner. Regards SoWhy 06:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Bharat (2019 film)

Hello dear, can you help me in creating page Bharat (2019 film)? How can I make it? There are many reliable sources found in Google search about the film. (WriteRight45 (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC))

@WriteRight45: I suggest you try using the article wizard to create a draft for this film that can then be reviewed by experienced editors. Regards SoWhy 06:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I need one more help, where can I find all the policies of Wikipedia? Thank you (WriteRight45 (talk) 06:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC))
@WriteRight45: Most of them should be listed at Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines. Regards SoWhy 08:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, Thank you. Please leave a note on my talk so I can easily understand. (WriteRight45 (talk) 08:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC))

A tad late...

Hi - forgive this ridiculously belated question - but whatever happened to the Highbeam subscriptions? I gather they're no longer available - but are there replacements? I tried logging on and it sent me a password link but obviously it's way past active status. Thanks! Tvoz/talk 15:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Tvoz: Hi there. Sorry, I just know that HighBeam no longer is available myself, neither new accounts nor renewals, although existing subscriptions still work. Maybe asking at WT:LIBRARY can tell you more. If you need any sources, my access still works, so I can help with that. As for replacements, Newspapers.com and NewspaperARCHIVE.com should work for newspaper sources and suchlike. Regards SoWhy 17:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Adopt me

Hi, I have seen you are accepting adoptee on Wikipedia. I wants to join you and learn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaushikdjay (talk • contribs) 12:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kaushikdjay: Usually, I'd be happy to but as I mentioned three sections up, I am currently a tad busy and probably not able to provide much guidance. You might want to ask someone more active. Regards SoWhy 13:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Don Stits

The speedy deletion has been declined. I do not think that we should have two articles as he is known for only one thing, so perhaps a merger with the plane could be proposed. What is your advice in this matter? 2Joules (talk) 07:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@2Joules: A merger might be a good idea. You can do it yourself, just see WP:ATD-M and WP:BLP1E for pointers. My decline was solely based on the fact that deletion is not the correct way to handle it when alternatives to deletion exist. Regards SoWhy 07:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Article Speedy deletion Appreciation

Thank you for declining deletion of Mcebo Dlamini & Collen Maine. Created articles with directed intent for my edits. Also see, Joseph Kalimbwe for edit as it equally has reliable sources as opposed to its reason for deletion. 

Ephraim Kagwa (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Deleted Article

Hello I recently created three articles

1. Mcebo Dlamini

2. Collen Maine

3. Joseph Kalimbwe

All these articles were immediately set for deletion, speedy deletion due to (notability, reliable sources). However, sources were provided. Mcebo Dlamini has been thankfully restored by you but Joseph Kalimbwe has been deleted again. I do not understand why it keeps on being deleted as I have provided reliable sources and information, as was put by the administrar who deleted it. I do believe, substantial changes were made for it to be kept on Wikipedia. Ephraim Kagwa (talk) 08:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ephraim Kagwa: I cannot explain another admin's actions to you (especially this admin's). You have to ask him directly. If you want to have more time and input before publishing an article, I suggest you create a draft instead and submit it to the articles for creation process for review. That way, you can get feedback on your article without risk of deletion. Regards SoWhy 09:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Dear Whyso

Thank you very much for the advise to contact the Administer, the page has been restored by the administrator who initially deleted it. However, it is still having a deletion tag because the administor says it's cititations and links need to be well put. I have made significant efforts to edit the have the article and include verifiable sources. After make those changes, I do not find reason for it to still be considered for deletion.

This is because I believe administrators form part of a select few who must be of great help.

Could you kindly assist me in this regard in making it fully operational in terms of the links (sources) have been put as per administrator's requirement.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Kalimbwe Ephraim Kagwa (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ephraim Kagwa: You are free to argue against deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Kalimbwe (2nd nomination). If you can indeed prove that he has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, mention them in the Articles for deletion discussion. This is not an administrative decision, so my input, if any, has no more or less weight than any other editor's. Regards SoWhy 13:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the clarification on the pending RfA. I misread the nom statements. StrikerforceTalk 14:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


Regarding your article on Youtubers (again)

Youtuber is now an article on wikipedia! Congrats! But there's one problem, there is already a redirect with the same name that redirects to the list of youtubers. So when you search youtuber and click on the first result which is youtuber, it redirects to list of youtubers instead of the article itself and when you search youtuber and press enter, the same thing happens and you will only find the article if you click the containing youtuber button and click on the second result, which is the article on Youtubers. But the average person probably won't bother to do that. So what i'm saying is, could you nominate the youtuber redirect for deletion so that when you search up youtuber, it goes to the actual article and not the redirect? Thanks! P.S. The reason i'm not doing it myself is because i have been editing wikipedia for only 2 months and I don't know how to nominate a redirect or article for deletion. P.P.S. Here's the redirect:https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Youtuber&redirect=no P.P.P.S. Nevermind, you did it already. 344917661X (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @344917661X:  Fixed, they now point to the article. For future reference, see Help:Redirect#Creating and editing redirects on how to edit redirects. Regards SoWhy 16:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Questia

Hi - I emailed Luis twice regarding a renewal of my Questia access but I haven't heard back from him. Do you know how long it usually takes to receive a response or have any information about what might be causing the delay? Seraphim System (talk) 07:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: Sorry, I have no information about delays. If you email me your account information (email address used), I will try to see what I can do. Regards SoWhy 07:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, SoWhy. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Seraphim System (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Double salary saga (G10)

I proposed CSD via G10 as I thought that the page was an attack page. It just gives out rumors that are unsourced and attack the subjects. I did not propose CSD via unsourced BLP concerns. Can you take a second look? Or should I just PROD? 2Joules (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@2Joules: That was my point. The allegations are in fact sourced or at least sourceable [13] [14] [15] [16]. WP:G10 does not cover pages that are trying to neutrally document what countless reliable sources have already covered. Whether the names are necessary to include is a different question but one can remove them without having to remove the whole page. As for PROD, I'd suggest you ask someone with more knowledge of African politics first. After all, 244 GNews hits indicate that this might in fact be a notable topic. Regards SoWhy 07:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Response to June 2018

Hi,

Thank you for taking time out to reply to my query.

So I work for the company named PayMate and we have a wikipedia page as well. The firm is based in Mumbai. Our wikipedia page had not been updated since a long time. The person who had created the page no longer works with the company and did not even share the credentials that were used to create PayMate's wikipedia page.

I joined the company in March, 2018 and am very new to editing articles on wikipedia. I found the most basic way of editing and edited the content of the company on the platform.

So indirectly, it is my job to ensure that latest content about the company is there on the web. The content that has been currently been used is in sync with our website and supportive articles are linked.

I need help currently with two things:

  1. Where do I need to add my employer details in my profile so wikipedia can verify the information?
  2. How can I submit the page for review?

Hetal Sha (talk) 11:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)Hetal

@Hetal Sha: If you work for PayMate and edit articles related to them, you need to add the following text to your user page: {{paid|employer=PayMate}}. This will place a template on your userpage that allows everyone to see that you have a conflict of interest when editing these articles. Click this link to edit your userpage.
Then, if you believe changes are required, go to the article's talk page (e.g. Talk:PayMate), add a new section (link "new section") and add the template {{request edit}} alongside what you wish to see changed. This will place the page in a category that volunteer editors patrol to review the proposed changes. Regards SoWhy 12:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Soft deletion of article

Hello. I have noticed that you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medicine: Prep Manual for Undergraduates as "soft delete". Per the rubric of WP:SOFTDELETE, I would like you to WP:REFUND the article that was deleted. I have noticed that the number of editions of the book, which is a criteria of WP:TBK was not considered at the AfD. This book appears to have gone through five editions, which prima facie implies that it is popular (because you would not normally print a new edition of a book unless the last edition sold well). The claim that there are no hits in GBooks is not accurate either. There is a review of this book at (1995) 54 British Journal of Hospital Medicine 295 [17] (editors surname written as "Matthew" instead of "Mathew", date of publication given as 1994). Google's search engine is temperamental and seems to "choke" on speech marks, so it is not enough to just put the name of a book in. I found the aforementioned result on a search for mathew+"prep manual"+1995, and that is the sort of query you have to use to get sense out of GBooks. There may well be more sources. Thank you in advance. James500 (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@James500:  Done. No need to elaborate, as it was soft deleted I restored it as requested. Remember to add those sources to avoid a new AFD though. Regards SoWhy 16:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Rezurex

Hello SoWhy, Just dropped by to request a glance at a deleted article. This article was previously deleted after discussion. It was recreated recently. The deleting admin is not active nowadays, so can you check whether this qualifies for G4. Regards, Hitro talk 09:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

 G4ed. Text was somewhat different but everything else was the same, especially the fact that notability concerns were not addressed. Regards SoWhy 10:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Y. N. Murali

Can you tell the real reason for deletion of the article ? // significant local coverage // , So i need to arrange some local paid media news about him ? Gnuismail (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Issued them the one time warning. @Gnuismail: Please do not post legal threats or you will risk getting blocked. To answer your question, notability is acquired through reputable sources. Paying people to write about them probably won't help because the source would have a conflict of interest with the topic. Sources on Y. N. Murali will appear on their own if the person is notable enough for an article. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Can you checked my contributions on wikipedia before the deletion of article about YN Murali ? I am request first check my contributions and quality of providing proofs on my contributions like here and here. I love wikipedia verymuch due to such universal brotherhood. Without verification and just googling the article name, you are deleted the article YN Murali. Now i want to work with the article and going to work such articles. any more questions ? Gnuismail (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
    • @Gnuismail: I'm sorry but what exactly do you want / expect me to do? Anarchyte is right, you made a legal threat and you were warned for it. You are always welcome to start a new draft of this article at Draft:Y. N. Murali and submit it for review once you have established the subject's notability. The article wizard is a useful tool to do so. Regards SoWhy 07:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
    • @SoWhy: , Yes. I made legal threat due to your's "just googling" knowledge for use to editing on wikipedia here ! Just Goolging a name is benchmark of a wikipedia article ?. Shall i pay news papers agencies and media companies to create so many article about YN Murali on web ? This is the compulsory requirement of wikipedia ? I know very well Mr. YN Murali don't have any online presence and he have own domain in last 13 years on www.ynmurali.com . You made a mistake to deleted the article even i was informed talk page on the article to wait some time. So you must resolve, what you messed up heret. So just undelete the YN Murali aricle. If you can't do that, inform to me. Awaiting for your reply Gnuismail (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
      @Gnuismail: As Anarchyte informed you already, our metric to judge whether any subject is worthy of inclusion is whether reliable sources independent of the subject significantly covered the subject. Without such independent coverage, we cannot write a neutral article about anyone or anything. There was a discussion and consensus was that this is not the case, so deleting the article was the right decision. If and only if you can provide such sources, then we can talk about restoring the article. Not sooner. Regards SoWhy 12:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
    • @SoWhy: , // if you can provide such sources // which sources are you need to restore the article for Y.N.Murali here ? Any paid news media portal links ? or self cooked up news stories about him ? or do you need a particular media link for proof of his existence in the real world to create a wikipedia article ? For Your Information, his next movie project named as "Thirupathi Samy Kudumbam" will be plan to release 25th on this June month. He was worked as cinematographer and vfx on the movie. Watch the trailer | here . But your just google search engine knowledge and desktop editing on wikipedia is won't help you. Reason is the movie trailer in our Tamil language. Due to [strike on tamil cine industry], the movie release delayed. That only reason i was requested on the talk page of article to wait some real inputs about him. But you didn't care about it. Also you have spend time to remove his internal wiki links on his worked movie articles here. The articles are created several years before . // then we can talk about restoring the article. Not sooner. // , I can able to sense your arrogant attitude lead to another BLP controversy on wikipedia sooner. Hmm, ready to face the consequences of what you did on here. I am waiting for it. Gnuismail (talk) 13:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
      @Gnuismail: Maybe you would feel more comfortable contributing to the Tamil Wikipedia instead? As I said, we need significant independent coverage. Not something paid for or written by the subject or others close to him. You might want to read those pages I linked to. Pointing you to the rules that apply is not an "arrogant attitude". Regards SoWhy 14:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
      Do you read Hmm, ready to face the consequences of what you did on here. as some form of legal threat? ∯WBGconverse 14:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
      I considered it but I decided to AGF that it was not meant as such. Further comments might change that opinion though. Regards SoWhy 15:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?

 You are invited to join the discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Re: "did he claim to be an expert when he wasn't?"

Shame the thread got closed before I could respond, but I obviously knew it was coming. Anyway, the answer would depend on what exactly you meant by the question: if you meant "Did he explicitly refer to himself as an 'expert'?", the answer would be "Not to my knowledge, but quite possibly -- he's definitely got that reputation, and convinced at least one contributor to the recent AN thread that he has a special connection with 'East Asia'"; if you meant "Did he claim to have read and understood scholarly literature that he clearly had not?" or "Did he cite unreliable non-specialist sources in a manner that implied expert scholarly authority?" the answer to both would be "Yes".

Obviously, I am not saying that laypeople should be banned from AFDs on technical topics as a rule, but laypeople who routinely put on airs of having specialist knowledge, with the goal of pushing a particular POV -- in this case, avoid deletion/redirecting in all cases that aren't clearly about non-notable topics -- should be sanctioned. It's actually fairly easy to tell the difference between a good-faith lay commenter and a lay commenter who is disruptively pretending to be an expert, as the former will almost always agree with the editors who predominantly edit within the relevant topic area, as I did in the "General Caste" AFD I linked to; the latter will agree with such editors when it means !voting one way, but not the other.

As I told another editor, though, I'm not interested in pursuing this further in the near future, as I'm quite burned out on AFDs and drahma and AFD-related drahma at the moment, so that once another loosely related matter is resolved I'll likely take a long break and go back to working on obscure "personal" projects like an overhaul of our Man'yōshū article, which will take the form of me dramatically expanding (and creating) articles on various different aspects of the topic and turning the main article into a "hub"; the really ironic thing is that a lot of the editors I've been interacting with recently have labelled me a "deletionist", but most of them would likely not !vote against an AFD on something as apparently-niche and "yeah, this could be merged" as Interpretation of the title of the Man'yōshū.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: As I said at the AN thread, it's hard to determine bad faith in such cases. Is it really bad faith if someone believes they understood the topic but you disagree? After all, once you start implying that anyone who does not "almost always agree" with those predominantly editing a certain topic area must be "a lay commenter who is disruptively pretending to be an expert", you start down a slippery slope that ends worse for all involved. And it might sooner or later end with a WP:BOOMERANG for you which is not in the project's best interest. So I agree that focusing on something else might very well be a good idea. Regards SoWhy 19:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Help request

Can you fix the page of Gerald Green (film producer) Ryan Pikachu (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ryan Pikachu: First, next time please create a new section using the link at the top. I almost didn't see your message. I expanded some refs and added some categories but I don't know what else there is to fix. Please elaborate. Regards SoWhy 19:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 28

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 28, April – May 2018

  • #1Bib1Ref
  • New partners
  • User Group update
  • Global branches update
    • Wikipedia Library global coordinators' meeting
  • Spotlight: What are the ten most cited sources on Wikipedia? Let's ask the data
  • Bytes in brief

Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Checking in

Draft:KRAKS MEDIA —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

You do realize that you can just tag such pages for g11 speedy deletion? Regards SoWhy 14:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Really?! :p But, "sharing is caring" of course  :) take care! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
SoWhy, I assumed it would be recreated, and it has been (and deleted again!); but was it by the same user, can you tell me? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 10:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Yep. I forgot to warn them with the last deletion, so that might be on me. Regards SoWhy 10:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Cheers! Hope all is well. No problem, more idle curiosity than anything. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Shetall Siingh

I just notice user Realpradeep's last edit anywhere on Wikipedia was in November 2016 and he suddenly appeared yesterday, a day after Shetall Siingh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked only to recreate their deleted article Draft:Sheetal Siingh (CEO) in mainspace so do you want to fill the SPI? Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@GSS: It looks more like the former is a user who works within a certain company or for certain people and was tasked with recreating the page after the latter's efforts failed. I don't think it's sock-puppetry, since Realpradeep had no reason to create a new account just to create a draft. The text is also noticiably different. So I don't see a reason for a SPI report here. But since you are here already, could you take a look at Bhupendra Kumar Modi please? That article is a mess of COI and POV language but I don't have the language skills to work with sources from India. Regards SoWhy 16:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
This is a complete mess that I would have tagged this article for speedy deletion under G11 and let someone else with no COI recreate it from a natural point of view. If you read the article it doesn't even explain why the person is notable and reads like a personal CV. Most of the sources are unnecessary and some of them are not even reliable. I have added some maintenance tags since there were none and I'll try to trim it down. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Most of the mess was added two years ago but it's been too long to simply revert back. Otherwise I'd have handled it via deletion myself. Thanks for taking a look! Regards SoWhy 19:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Finally I tried to clean up the mess by rewriting from a natural point of view and removed some unsourced, unverifiable information including some sources that do not belong to this BLP instead of his company. The "Career" section still needs some more clean-up so please take a look and let me know if there is anything else to do if all ok you can go ahead and remove the maintenance tags accordingly. sigh... Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!

I was considering doing the same myself!--5 albert square (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

YouTube

Why are you so against sourcing? If you actually split the list into other lists, it wouldn't be that hard to maintain. But let's continue to feel that sourcing isn't necessary. Sourcing is one of the most important pillars of YouTube. You might ask why I didn't oppose, but my reversion last time was clear opposition. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 15:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Fishhead2100: I'm very much pro sourcing. I'm just against sourcing in this list because it isn't necessary and you have - and do - failed to demonstrate why they are. Sources belong in the articles about the artists, not in lists, which most people agree upon. My advice: Let it go. Regards SoWhy 07:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
What percentage of people that go to the list actually go to the individual articles if they are not editors? Hell, what percentage of editors go to the individual articles? I don't. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 02:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
That's like saying "what percentage of people actually check the references in an article?" and the answer is, as it is to your question, "who cares?". It's not about whether people actually do it, it's about whether they can if they want to. That they can do. Regards SoWhy 07:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I am back now.

I'm that guy who asked you for help sometimes. I decided it wasn't worth it to quit over what a few people said to me about my writing. I know I'm a good writer for my age at least and that's all I need to go on. I made an essay, or rant, here about it (this is written as a journal entry-ish responding to statements made against me at Talk:Clyde cancer cluster). I think I wrote that well. This project is about it, not us, but measures need to be taken to prevent bullying or borderline bullying so that this project can continue to gain contributors and not lose them, and sometimes oneself can prevent that by their own means. As I am doing. I am no longer semi-retired, and I will continue to ask for your help when I need it. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@PseudoSkull: Welcome back If editing gets hot again, Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot has some good tips on what to do. Regards SoWhy 10:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Adopt-a-user: Need Help Navigating the Site

Hi, I saw that you were accepting adopted on the adopt-a-user page and wanted you to consider mentoring me in the more bureaucratic aspects of Wikipedia. I've only been actively editing for a short-while and have always been confused about how consensus and the various administrative aspects behind Wikipedia function. It would be great if you could help figure out how to navigate it.Zubin12 (talk) 08:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Zubin12: While I'm always happy to help, I am currently experiencing some real-life stress that limits my activity on Wikipedia. So I cannot adopt you per se but if you have a particular question, I try my best to answer it in a speedy manner. Regards SoWhy 10:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, my sympathies and hope that you overcome whatever is causing you stress. Thanks for replying promptlyZubin12 (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
It's just work, I fear it will take another 40 years to overcome that ;-) Regards SoWhy 10:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanx for help on submitting a new article for review.

UltraFlask (talk) 09:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the problem with my signature. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Emaar South

Emaar South. A recent freelance project popped up with this article creation claiming that it was deleted in May. The project has now been deleted and I did not bookmark it. Is it possible to somehow take a look at the admins log of articles deletions and check which user created the previous version of the article? I would like to see if there is enough similarity to start an SPI. 2Joules (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@2Joules: The previous article was created by AETEST. The content of both articles is mostly the same but without a AFD precedent, it cannot be speedy deleted per WP:G4. Regards SoWhy 07:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Why I lost my mind

You just sent me a message, and I hope this is the right place to respond. But I am very far from a digital native, and maybe I'm doing this all wrong.

Yes, I am a conservative. I see you identify as a liberal. In a sane world, we should be able to agree to disagree, and not bully each other out of existence.

I just spent a very long time carefully correcting some blatant mistakes in the "Suicide of Vince Foster" piece, only to have someone remove every word I wrote, in one fell swoop. Frankly, it's maddening. It has happened to me before, but somehow this is the one that sent me off the edge.

Yes, I am a (usually) rational individual, who happens to believe that the evidence supporting homicide is stronger than that supporting the finding of suicide in the death of Vince Foster. However, I understand the liberal neighborhood in which I operate, which only makes me even more careful to stick to veriable facts. So I corrected a few obvious mistakes, such as the number of investigations supporting suicide (5, not 6), and edited out the obvious errors regarding David Brock's political sojourns from left to right and back to left again.

Facts. I inserted facts. I removed misinformation.

Additionally, I added the work of a respected journalist, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, who conducted his own investigation, and, relying on a high number of sources, concluded that Foster's death was a homicide. Note that I did not remove all the alleged evidence of suicide, not did I address the rather obviously biased title of the article ("Suicide of Vince Foster"). I simply tried to show that another side exists.

And my work of an hour+ was summarily dismissed in seconds by someone who is clearly ignorant of the case.

I'm sorry for finally snapping. This is not the first time I have been so victimized, though. But I will challenge you to find a word I edited in my previous 250 or 300 Wikipedia edits that is or was unfair. My frustration is compounded by the fact that I have no idea how to respond to the unfair removal of my work. Is there away to put it all back in as one? Or need I spend another hour, inserting it step-by-step, only to have another ignorant fellow remove it en-masse?

When will Wikipedia be fair to those who don't toe the line of the dominant, liberal media? Is there any reason that conservatives need to feel like second-class citizens around here? Is it unfair to ask that people actually check out the facts with an open mind before removing someone else's edits? Vcuttolo (talk) 09:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Vcuttolo: I don't care the least bit about the subject you were editing. You can disagree with others as much as you want but if you start attacking them personally, you cross the line. Wikipedia relies on collaboration and for that, civility is key. Instead of claiming to be the victim and accusing others of biased editing, use the copious amount of dispute resolution tools we have available: Instead of re-doing your edits when challenged, start a discussion on the talk page about it. The way you are currently acting will get you banned sooner or later and what's the point in that? (and I won't hesitate to do so myself if I have to). Regards SoWhy 09:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. I'm exhausted, I need sleep, maybe some other time I'll figure out how to do the stuff you described.

I hope you can try to see this from the other side. 1) I don't know how to address all this within the guidelines, increasing my frustration exponentially. 2) More basically, Wikipedia shouldn't be a liberal enterprise, wherein conservatives must appeal to the liberal powers that be in order to correct misinformation. To use an old parable, say I go into your house, hold your wife and kids hostage, and when you come home, I tell you that we can discuss their release for the right price. Would you negotiate under such terms? The idea that conservatives have to bargain for the right to be treated as equal citizens? That violates all that Wikipedia claims to stand for. Is Wikipedia truly a "wiki", or should we hang a sign saying "conservatives need not apply"? Why shouldn't the individual who global-edited out all my corrections (which somehow killed the lengthy one I never had the chance to complete) be allowed to destroy all my work at the snap of his fingers? Shouldn't HE be sanctioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcuttolo (talk • contribs) 10:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Vcuttolo: If your basic assumption is "they are against me because I am <insert philosophy/religion/gender/etc. here>", you have already lost the argument. If and when you are willing to follow one of the most basic rules of Wikipedia and assume good faith that all your fellow editors are only trying to create a neutral and free encyclopedia that everyone can benefit from, then you will be able to work with them to achieve this goal through calm and constructive discussion. But insisting that you alone are correct and everyone else is out to get you is unlikely to work (speaking from 14 years of experience that is). So no, the editor you attacked should not be sanctioned because they just did what people here do: Disagree with your edits. Now it's your turn to elaborate why your edits should be retained (cf. WP:BRD). Regards SoWhy 10:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm going on little sleep, was about to go to bed, let me see if I can distill this into something less than a 10,000 word piece. In my 250 edits, I have noticed a pattern. When I attempt to balance out a piece which is clearly biased to the left, a Wikipedia official editor (whatever they are called) will almost instantly remove my edits en masse. Other edits of mine suffer no such reversals. I went through a long and painful back-and-forth re the Dinesh D'Souza article. As it happens, I don't particularly like Dinesh D'Souza, but the article was clearly biased against him, so I made a few minor edits, barely noticeable in a lengthy article. Almost immediately, they were reversed. I addressed the reason that editor gave, rewrote my edits, but he reversed them again. Same thing happened then again. Eventually, after he mindlessly reversed my edits for something like the fourth time, he grudgingly returned and allowed that my latest watered-down version was okay, and reversed his own reversal of my edits.

Somehow when I add in something seen as a negative re a conservative, or a positive re a liberal, this sort of thing just doesn't happen. Do you think I wouldn't notice that?

On this occasion, I was in the midst of adding a lengthy paragraph to the "Suicide of Vince Foster" article, explaining the evidence showing homicide as the cause of death. Somehow my edit disappeared as I was putting the finishing touches on it, and I found that the previous edits were gone as well.

Those previous edits included... -Changing the number of official investigations of the Foster death that concluded with suicide as 5 instead of 6. The article listed not even one of the investigations by name, and provided no supporting links, either. The regular Vince Foster (not the "suicide of..") article lists 5 such investigations, by name, so I edited 6 to 5. -The article contained an astonishingly false claim about the exceedingly and openly partisan writer David Brock, who has switched sides from liberal to conservative to liberal. The article claimed he was a "lifelong conservative", but switched to liberal because he was disgusted by the nakedly false attempts to peddle the Foster homicide story. The problem? The nakedly false part is what the article claimed about Brock. In "Blinded by the Right", Brock's memoir, Brock himself provides plenty of background, more than enough to demonstrate that I corrected misinformation. If you don't want to read the book, read David Brock's Wikipedia page. Brock was a liberal until he switched, in the middle of his college years at Berkeley, to being a conservative. And he switched back to being a liberal between the years 1995-1997, well before the article claimed he did so as a result of his alleged disgust at a 1999 meeting where he was unconvinced by those who portrayed Foster's death as a homicide. The fact that those two FACTS were disposed of in a global dump of all my edits in the "Suicide" article absolutely calls into question the judgment and fairness of the individual who did just that. It is bad enough that I seemingly can't get an alternate viewpoint into the article, wherein I reference the evidence in favor of homicide, without getting labeled a "conspiracy theorist", or being dumped altogether. (I'd love someone to actually read the Ambrose Evans-Pritchard book and explain why his investigation is wrong. I'm a true crime afficianado; the book rings true, but I'm open to all discussion.) But a global deletion of everything I wrote because...well, if it isn't because I presented a conservative viewpoint, what is it then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcuttolo (talk • contribs) 11:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Vcuttolo: Again, I don't care about this subject at all. I have never heard of it and I have no information. And again, if you disagree with someone's edits, talk to them about it, don't insult them. And if they continue to disagree, there are plenty of options to handle it, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Third opinion for example. But all those require you to be able to assume good faith. If you continue to believe there is some kind of agenda behind what happens even before you allowed the editor in question to explain their edits, your editing career will soon be cut short. Regards SoWhy 12:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).

Administrator changes

added Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor
readded Gogo Dodo
removed Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

removed Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

  • 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.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

  • 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.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion due to lack of notability

Hello SoWhy!

I am the article creator of "Evangeline Leong" which has been deleted by you due to the lack of notability about the person, or lack of sources cited. However, I only started on the article yesterday, and I intend to work on it in a progressive manner, however it has been deleted before I had a chance to continue adding things. Just wondering if you would suggest for me to finish the whole article before posting it up? And also wondering if you could remove the speedy deletion tag so I can continue building onto the article. Also, if its possible, could you help me note the points which I am lacking such that this article will not be deleted again in the future?

I look forward to your reply.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lissa Sattakir (talk • contribs) 04:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

That deleted article was highly promotional and utterly unacceptable for this encyclopedia, Lissa Sattakir. This is a neutral encyclopedia not a marketing platform. Post that kind of thing on a website such as LinkedIn, where promotional content like that belongs. Do not try to add promotional content to Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
@Lissa Sattakir: Just a thought: using Wikipedia:Articles for creation next time might be a better idea. I understand the user may not have been aware that they were doing this in an inappropriate setting, especially as a new contributor. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
@Cullen328: Thanks for the feedback. Could I just check the reason why Jean Danker and Leonard Tan can remain on Wikipedia as it seems promotional to their own self too. I took their wikipedia pages as reference, so I thought it would be acceptable... Lissa Sattakir (talk) 04:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Lissa Sattakir, just because two crappy articles exist on Wikipedia does not mean that we welcome a third (or thousandth) crappy article on Wikipedia. That leads to a flood of hundreds of thousands of garbage articles. If you think those two articles do not meet our standards, then nominate them for deletion. Do not add promotional content or crappy articles to Wikipedia, or you will be blocked. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dungeons 3

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dungeons 3 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nomader -- Nomader (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Is there any provision to report vandalism of reviewers?

Hi there, thanks for declining speedy deletion of Arvind Melligeri page. I want to ask Is there any provision to report vandalism of such reviewers?(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:2Joules) Even though the article is notable and has a reliable, independent references that Wikipedian has nominated the article for speedy deletion. Rishi Muni (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Rishi Muni: Please be careful with your terminology. Vandalism has a distinct negative meaning on Wikipedia and requires "bad faith". Misguided speedy deletion requests do not constitute vandalism unless the user clearly intends to disrupt Wikipedia. I cannot see such intent here. In this case, the article had four references: 1 was to Wikipedia itself, thus circular. 1 was a speaker website, unreliable. And 1 only mentioned him in passing, thus insufficient. If you want to avoid such requests in future, use drafts to create a page in Draftspace and move it only when you are done. Regards SoWhy 17:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dungeons 3

The article Dungeons 3 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Dungeons 3 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nomader -- Nomader (talk) 03:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dungeons 3

The article Dungeons 3 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dungeons 3 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nomader -- Nomader (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Nine Percent

Hi SoWhy, why did you decline? I was sure it A7. A K-Pop band that has only existed for 8 weeks. scope_creep (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Scope creep: Length of existence is irrelevant. The group was created through a notable casting show, Idol Producer. That indicates significance. A lack of notability can and should be addressed by merging/redirecting per WP:ATD and WP:BAND. Regards SoWhy 13:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

DRV closure

Hey thanks for closing, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 June 20, the DRV about List of national capitals in alphabetical order. I think your closure is a bit convoluted in its reasoning, and I don't agree exactly with your not just relisting it, but it is diplomatic I guess. Now there is Talk:List of national capitals in alphabetical order#After the AFD and DRV, and perhaps a Requested Move procedure will be required. --Doncram (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I tried to be verbose and concise at the same time but in the end, it boiled down to: The close was by the book but not by the spirit but now that it's closed we shouldn't reopen it. Regards SoWhy 17:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

NSU-Zschäpe

Note that LaserLegs has posted an objection to posting. Vielleicht könntest du der Sache in Ordnung stellen? Sca (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

ITN recognition for National Socialist Underground trial

On 12 July 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article National Socialist Underground trial, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Re: Jodense Valenciano

Please read and review this article again. It was nominated for AFD in 2016 and was deleted together with two redirects (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jodense Valenciano). I have nominated this for CSD under db-repost but an admin declined it due to technicality (article was deleted as CSD before the AFD closed) and you have declined it again since the subject is "notable enough". If you read the article closely, it's an autobiography of some kid living in Cavite who incidentally had a similar surname with a Filipino artist Gary Valenciano. Also most of the shows that "Jodense Valenciano" supposed to appear are hoaxes. Please reconsider and review this CSD nomination again. -WayKurat (talk) 07:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@WayKurat: The report-tagging was indeed incorrect because it was not deleted via AFD. I did not say "notable enough", I said "some claims of significance", which is the case with claims of appearing on national television and coverage in newspapers. I also said BLP-PROD and/or AFD can handle it. I don't dispute that it's an autobiography but there is no policy that mandates deletion of autobiographies. So sorry, it simply does not fit the speedy deletion criteria. Regards SoWhy 08:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Ok, just to go within the process, I have created a 2nd AFD for this article. Hoping this will AFD will end all technicalities on why this article should be CSD'd in the first place. -WayKurat (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Baird Reunion

If you could have another look at Baird Reunion I'd appreciate it. This editor seems to be using Wikipedia as a soapbox, and has been edit warring with me as I try to clean up some edits. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: I see no reason to do so. Behavioral problems should be dealt with on a user level and do not affect the article itself. Whatever the user's intentions, the fact remains that the version I looked at claimed significance as the oldest such event in the US, which, if verifiable and significantly covered, might well establish notability. Whether the latter is the case is for AFD to decide, not speedy deletion. Instead of re-tagging it for speedy deletion (and thus exposing yourself to WP:FORUMSHOP allegations), make your case at AFD. Regards SoWhy 10:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Heaton

5 !votes to delete (including me as nominator), 2 to draftily - so why draftily? I know WP:NOTAVOTE but c'mon... GiantSnowman 10:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: As always, it's the strength of the argument, not the number. Let's analyze, shall we? Two !votes (Nosebagbear and Hhkohh) were in favor of deletion because you had a better draft (which has since been deleted). You also wrote happy to draft and wait for the (no doubt inevitable) professional debut.., so for me as an uninvolved admin this sounded like you no longer favored deletion over draftifying. So that leaves just two delete !votes without qualifier and both came before the subject played any game. In this situation, draftifying - i.e. following WP:PRESERVE and allowing the content to be worked upon further while notability was most likely to exist very soon - appeared to be the stronger choice than deletion. Regards SoWhy 10:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Mijntje Lückerath-Rovers

Hello So. Can you forward a copy of the deleted Mijntje Lückerath-Rovers into my sandbox. Believe I can bring it up to standards with a little work and additional references. Thanks for your help. ShoesssS Talk 12:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Shoessss:  Done, now located at User:Shoessss/Mijntje Lückerath-Rovers. Regards SoWhy 13:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you sir. ShoesssS Talk 13:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Closure of The B-Team (professional wrestling)

Hey, I was just wondering your rationale for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The B-Team (professional wrestling) as keep. I have never questioned a closure before, but this one surprises me. Although there were 8 keep !votes for it, and 2 delete, the arguments for keep were baseless. These are the 8 reasons for keeping "They've racked up plenty of wins", "The B-Team has earned so many wins and losses", "they now hold the Raw Tag Team Championships", " won the WWE Raw Tag Team Championship at Extreme Rules (2018)", "Have been a long running team, over several iterations and have won the tag titles", "per tag team championship reign", "Tag Team Champions on Raw", " per tag team championship reign and their win at Extreme Rules, this will only lead to a significant level of notability". Not one of the keeps state a policy based reason for it. Just because they won a championship or have been together, it doesn't mean they are notable. One of the keeps even states that by saying it will lead to it, meaning its WP:CRYSTAL. Thanks - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 16:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Galatz: Hmmm, you are right. I must have confused this with another AFD I closed. I actually wanted to relist that AFD and not close it. Now done. I think further discussion might be helpful, so thanks for bringing this to my attention and again sorry for the mistake. Regards SoWhy 17:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 17:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Warcraft III - Arthas - The Culling.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Warcraft III - Arthas - The Culling.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) SoWhy seems to have provided all the necessary source information. Not sure why the bot keeps tagging it.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 21:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
@SkyGazer 512: Probably because SoWhy didn't explicitly provide a source. Instead, that field is blank in the template and what is displaying is the default text. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I see now. Most of the parameters, including the source one, are not filled out - they just use what the template automatically provides by default.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 21:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
@SkyGazer 512 and Nihonjoe: None of those parameters are required per {{Non-free use rationale video game screenshot}} and the bot did not have problems with other files I uploaded with the same template, e.g. File:Dungeons 3 - Thalya.jpg. Very strange. I'll ask the bot operator why that happens. Regards SoWhy 07:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Matthew Axelson listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Matthew Axelson. Since you had some involvement with the Matthew Axelson redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. John from Idegon (talk) 07:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Dungeons 3

Hello! Your submission of Dungeons 3 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you help me please?

Deletion message has been tagged on my created page Lavi Hoss. Before its name was Lavi Beats.Deletion tagged was cleared by you.It has  been tagged with deletion message again. May I know the solution? Sbshuvo (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sbshuvo: (talk page stalker) A speedy deletion tag was removed, but now it's got a proposed deletion tag on it (placed by Reddogsix. They are different. I'm not going to comment on the article's quality, but if you think the article is fine, you can remove the tag but it may then be nominated for deletion at WP:AFD. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

ROTH Capital Partners

Hi SoWhy, can you explain your reasoning for closing this AfD as a "No Consensus"? There were 4 editors !voting for Delete and only 2 editors !voting to Keep. The reasoning provided by both of the Keep !voters appears to focus on "mainstream" coverage but this is not part of the criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations. Thank you. HighKing++ 14:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@HighKing: Vote-counting usually does not work, especially when two of those !votes are WP:VAGUEWAVEs without further reasoning and one is "does not seem" without reasoning. In this case, there was no consensus whether the coverage is sufficient to establish notability or not, so I closed it accordingly. On a side note neither you nor the other two !voters after that addressed Jbhunley's assertion that this subject is notable by applying the standards of WP:CRIME to this company. So yeah, based on strength of arguments, there was no clear consensus. Regards SoWhy 14:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
@SoWhy:, I won't argue about the WP:VAGUEWAVEs, that's within your discretion. There is no !vote stating "does not seem" but the nom does say "does not appear" which I take to be what you meant. I also thought that Mufin7Maniac did a good job rebutting both Keep !votes including the WP:CRIME assertion. Even so, if you are discounting the VAGUEWAVE !votes of Septrillion and K.e.coffman, and the nomintation by Muffin7Maniac your "No Consensus" close now makes complete sense. Thank you. HighKing++ 14:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not discounting them, weighted them much lower than the comments that actually discussed the different viewpoints (keep or delete). Muffin7 also did not respond further two both keep-!voters' responses and neither did anyone else. Without discussion of those, consensus was not possible though. Regards SoWhy 15:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for pulling me in here. To be honest, I'm new to the deletion scene and didn't want to overstep with my initial nomination. I wrote "doesn't appear to meet" because I was hoping to generate the conversation and to clarify whether I understood these concepts enough. I responded to both Keep votes with valid arguments, and addressed the WP:CRIME points as well. Another counter-argument was vague and pointed to WP:NEXIST but failed to address the concluding statement: "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." He even said himself that he can't find those sources because they are buried under piles of press releases. Neither argument seemed to need further rebuttal, and when a number of other editors voted Delete, I thought the case was closed. You mentioned above that I should have responded to the Keep votes- can you explain what you meant by that? Thanks.Muffin7Maniac (talk) 06:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@Muffin7Maniac: As I said above, I closed it as "no consensus" because further discussion did not happen. The closing admin's job is to judge the consensus in the discussion, not to decide themselves. Since the further comments were not replied to, especially when Jbh pointed to WP:PERP#2 (you had mentioned PERP#1), I would have needed a crystal ball to determine whether that argument was sufficient since no one even felt compelled to discuss it. That said, a no consensus close does not mean the article should exist. Feel free to renominate it, addressing the concerns raised in this discussion. Regards SoWhy 07:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I am away but will check what K.e.coffman thinks as well, and we'll see what happens.Muffin7Maniac (talk) 06:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit conflict for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Balboni

Hiya. I think we proposed the article to be deleted at the same time. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Balboni is the page in case you wanna add your comment to it. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Tyw7: Thanks for the message. Saw it, commented already. Regards SoWhy 10:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

IP Hopping vandal is back

The IP Hopping is back to my talk page https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tyw7&action=history --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 12:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Tyw7: Didn't notice the IP-hopping part and DoRD and JBW handled it in the mean time. Regards SoWhy 12:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. And no problem. Hope he's not back with another proxy IP. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 12:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Skye Bennett's Wikipedia page

Hello, can you please tell me why you have deleted Skye Bennett's Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekobinx (talk • contribs) 12:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ekobinx: I deleted it because the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skye Bennett was that she does not meet our notability guidelines (or at least because there is no coverage in reliable sources to establish her notability. Regards SoWhy 12:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Are her IMDB entries not credible? There are other actors of similar background with active pages. Can you advise what we have to do to re-activate her Wikipedia page, as I want to add things to it. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekobinx (talk • contribs) 12:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ekobinx: "We"? Are multiple people using your account? As for your questions, see Wikipedia:Citing IMDb and Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Regards SoWhy 13:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I am the sole user of my account. By 'we', I meant 'between you and I' as in 'working together'. Thank you for your advice, I will try to find answers there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekobinx (talk • contribs) 13:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ekobinx: I see. If you wish to have her entry restored, I recommend proving that multiple reliable sources have written about her in detail (which excludes user-generated sites like IMDB, short mentions or interviews). Regards SoWhy 13:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Wooo

I am sorry for the edit wars. ColorTheoryRGB ColorTheoryCMYK

@ColorTheoryRGB: Saying sorry and continuing to edit-war is not really a good look. If you continue, you will be blocked. Second, you don't have any pages. Try to remember that. Regards SoWhy 18:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you can help? After all, I am a beginner compared to a full-time editor like you.

ColorTheoryRGB ColorTheoryCMYK

@ColorTheoryRGB: For starters, if multiple people tell you that your edits are destructive, stop making them and start a discussion on a relevant talk page. It's that easy. People on Wikipedia will always disagree on the best way to do something but that itself is not problematic if all involved are willing to discuss it. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for a more detailed overview. Basically, if you believe a certain song is notable enough to have its own article, raise the issue at the artist's talk page (e.g. Talk:Denzel Curry) and present your argument there for others to discuss. Remember to provide plenty of reliable sources to establish notability and have some patience since we are all volunteers and thus cannot check all pages all the time. Regards SoWhy 19:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


Thanks for all of the information you gave me on my request. Kadane

Admin or somebody knowledgeable in neighborhood notability

I have opened an RFC for several of the Israeli cities that I think are un-encyclopedic. I don't know a lot of admin so I thought I might post this to you in case you can help me find admins who are more versed in that topic. Your input is also welcomed. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tyw7: Not really my area, true. You might have more luck trying to ask some people from Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel/Participants. Possibly some of my talk page stalkers can also help? Regards SoWhy 14:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Left a couple of messages on their talk pages. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Wow, six years already? Thanks! Regards SoWhy 07:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SoWhy/Archive_28&oldid=1143316657"