User talk:78.26/archive2020-1

It kinda looks like Spanish

Hola amigo, It just had to happen: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_May_Williams. Saludos y pesetas, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Oldsanfelipe2: Color me celoso. I feel confident enough (with a healthy dose of trepidation) to use Spanish and German-language sources in my articles, but in no way do I feel competent enough to write an article in any other language than English. Congratulations, and well done! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

78.26, My original assessment of my own writing appears to be the correct one: "it kinda looks like Spanish." Thankfully there are ES editors who have been patient enough to correct my many mistakes and make other improvements to the article. But I have done the tedious work of the infobox, inline citations, and the bibliography while introducing an article relevant to Mexican history to ES.Wikipedia.

Most of the Texas history buffs are dismissive of Williams because of his associations with the Monclova government and his large land grants. The Galveston, Texas article, for example, has very little to say about him despite his importance to local history.

On another note, there is another polyglot Texian known to most Anglos as George Fisher. Many sources mention him, but few write about him in great detail. I need to get a hold of the biography listed on the Wikipedia article. He most likely spoke Serbian and Hungarian, learned English and Spanish on the fly, and even published a Spanish language newspaper based in Mexico. I am guessing he spoke German as well because he was elected to serve as an officer in a Texas society of German immigrants despite not being a German immigrant. I have seen his name(s) pop up in 1837 deed records. Once it appears that he signed by using the name of his native city, Székesfehérvár. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Joc-O-Sot

On 8 January 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Joc-O-Sot, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that superstitious people hold a Cleveland Indian responsible for losses by the Cleveland Indians? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Joc-O-Sot. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Joc-O-Sot), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

How about another barnstar?

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For careful reading, asking great questions, obtaining advice for copyright issues, and most important, digging through the sources and fielding the reviewer's questions. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Oldsanfelipe2: as usual you are too kind. I had taken a couple of random photos at the Hall of State of the statues, just in case they didn't have an article, and Williams did not. So I wrote up a little tidbit about him with a couple of sources I had readily available at the time. I built a rickety foundation, which you turned into a mansion. I then noticed a couple of loose shingles after the reconstruction was complete. You're the editor who did all the work. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I am merely returning kindness with kindness.

You gave my house a thorough building inspection which led to it being built to a higher standard. As much as I appreciate the work of wiki gnomes and others who make incremental edits, it seems that real collaboration is rare on Wikipedia. You gave a careful reading to a long article with some convoluted sub-plots and checked at least parts of the sources. And bringing in some other editors for advice on images was very helpful. Being immersed in a subject leads to a degree of expertise, but sometimes leads to a loss of perspective that makes it hard to see the faulty joints and the loose shingles. Perhaps other editors can create high-quality content without feedback and assistance, but I am not one of them. Sincerely, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Waldo & Lyle, P.C. Notability

You declined the speedy deletion on my page for Waldo & Lyle, P.C., but said that it still had notability issues. I was hoping you advise me on getting it to the point where we can take down the banner on notability. I added some items to the topic's talk page but never got any responses. There are several Virginia firms that don't link to many, if any, second-party sources about their firm, and pages for Oblon and Allen, Allen, Allen & Allen have references to their attorneys' recognition and a blog, and things like that, but don't have a banner or anything discussing being promotional. I've thrown some more things on my page which may or may not be promotional given the other firms' pages as reference. I've cited an article by the Virginian Pilot that was entirely on Joseph Waldo and his practice with the firm, which I think should fulfill the criterion of second-party source talking about the topic itself. I just want to get the article safe from deletion. Any help would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WBNewman1 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I goofed

@78.26: I accidently created the following page by mistake it was to be a category, not an article so I'm asking for it to be deleted. That page is Diablo II user templates. Catfurball (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Catfurball: no problem,  Done. Happy editing! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Streckfus Steamers

Hey 78.26, I just looked over an article I created a few years back about a steamboat excursion company which featured live music. I was inspired by the book Jazz on the River; then, I convinced myself that I could write about music and steamships. Please take a look at the article if you are so inclined. None of the WikiProjects want to own this article. It was assigned to US WP, St. Louis WP, and Transportation WP. I think it would be correctly classified as a music article. The music folks think of this as a transportation story and the transport and shipping people think of it as an entertainment story. One concern I have about my own treatment of the subject is the company's treatment of minorities. This is also a subject important for its social history, so some social commentary is unavoidable and supported by reliable sources. Has the article sanitized segregation? Has the article presented these issues in way that is appropriate for Wikipedia? This is asking for much, so I will understand if you are too busy. Thanks for reading, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 13:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Oldsanfelipe2: No wikiproject "owns" and article, any more than an editor "owns" an article. Wikiprojects are merely to let editors know that an article contains or may contain subject matter that interests them. I would certainly consider this article of interest to WikiProject Jazz. Sure, a minority of editors interested in jazz music will be interested in this particular article, but it's not like we have "pre-jazz" and "20s jazz" and "big band jazz" and "bop jazz" and "free jazz" etc. etc. WikiProjects, so the scope is indeed very broad. I'll take a look at your deeper questions, but when it comes to social issues it is impossible to make everyone happy, so the best you can do is write about what the reliable sources directly say about the topic, and then link to the topics that come up (i.e. segregation), and let the reader infer the broader context. By the way I need to dive into the FA status of Williams, I do have at least one suggestion, but I'll do that at the review area. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Own is a very poor choice of verb given WP: OWNERSHIP. I guess I see the role of WikiProjects being much more than a content area. I think of a WikiProject supporting articles and editors working within a content area. I have not check in on them lately, but two years ago my brief encounters with WP Women's History and Women in Red convinced me that these were the two models of what a WikiProject can be. My contributions to articles within the scope of their projects were paltry, but I received more support from those groups than from all other projects combined.

If Fate Marable recordings were available, I doubt there would be much interest in them aside from some really nerdy social music historians. His music career was defined by his employment with Streckfus Steamers and John Streckfus had a very rigid idea of proper music for his excursion ships. So this is really not jazz-lovers' jazz. But there is an important social history here in a kind of Ken Burns-channeling-Wynford-Marsallis way. Louis Armstrong got his first gig away from NOLA with Marable's band, and Marable "took him to music university." But I am not terribly knowledgeable about music, and a stack of Armstrong biographies and Hot Fives/Sevens does not change that.

Regarding segregation and treatment of black musicians, it's true that someone will be unhappy regardless. I am aiming for putting it into a reasonable context and keeping that within Wikipedia standards. I think I did a good job, but I am not always the best judge of my own work.

I appreciate your continued interest in the Williams article. I was concerned that you might be Williamsed out. Best, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Williams ready for FAC

I am ready to take Samuel May Williams to FAC. Are you interested in joining me? Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Help me with Draft:Agnel Roman Buddy

hello, User:78.26 last time you had verified that Draft:Agnel Roman has not relatability issue and you had made this article in draft mode. after that i have updated another source and added this article for submission

now another admin this saying there is an issue with it .

this person has an article from times of India (reputed newspaper in India - he is saying it a blog) [1] WP:NEWSBLOG - it is and also there is another article in the Marathi language from Divya Bhaskar Marathi - another well-reputed newspaper of India see [2] WP:NONENG

both the articles are clearly about Draft:Agnel Roman and are a significant coverage, not a passing mention.

pls help Thanks

Annki777 (talk) 17:00, 06 february 2020 (UTC)

@Annki777: Right away I'd like to make a couple of things clear. First, my goal is not to get this particular article moved to mainspace. My goal is to help you become a productive editor who gets well referenced, notable articles on mainspace. Second, I want to be clear that I consider Winged Blades of Godric an expert on the reliability of Indian sources, and if I didn't already know he was working on this, I would have pinged him. He is not an administrator, by the way, but he is highly experienced and his AfD reviews command respect.

An topic is considered generally notable when multiple independent, reliable sources discuss the topic in a "significant" manner. Regarding the sources you list on my page, it is apparent that the Times of India can not be considered an "Independent" source, because of the reasons WBG gives on his page to which he links. Reading that article is sure comes across as a press release to me. I can not read anything not written in Latin script, so I can't evaluate epaperdivyamarathi.bhaskar.com. You state that he "scored" Indian films, but it appears he contributed compositions. "Scoring" a film means adding orchetrations behind the script, and that doesn't appear to be what he is doing. He did sing on a couple of the songs that appear in the films. With the possible exception of bhaskar, I don't see any references which describe the topic substantially that can't be tied back to the topic. I hope that helps. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Tunnel Inn, California

I noticed that Tunnel Inn, California and Wild Crossing, California were deleted. Of 323 articles created, these have been the only two I have ever had deleted. I left a message with User:Reywas92 to inquire if that editor intentionally chose not to notify me (the article's creator) when submitting the AfD. Perhaps I just missed both notifications. I certainly would have participated in both discussions, as I never create junk articles. Would you mind moving these both to draftspace for me? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: Happy to. You'll find them at: User:Magnolia677/Wild Crossing, California and User:Magnolia677/Tunnel Inn, California

User:Joshuaharrisoneast - why the reduction?

• Joshuaharrisoneast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Did we edit conflict, or did you intentionally reduce the block to 24 hours? Frankly, I was debating whether an indef was in order, but settled on 72 hours to give a chance for the user to come around. —C.Fred (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Pure edit conflict. I have restored your timeline. Sorry about that. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Lots of edit conflicts in this particular situation! No worries. —C.Fred (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

FTX (cryptocurrency derivatives exchange)

Hi 78.26,

My first Wikipedia article FTX (cryptocurrency derivatives exchange) was deleted by User:Jimfbleak for the reason "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". I am an employee of FTX cryptocurrency exchange and I do understand the reason of deletetion. Is it possible you help move that article back to the draft space for me please? I will work with Jimbleak on revising it before publishing it again. Thank you.

Daveftx (talk) 08:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Daveftx:. I see you've already received a fair amount of great advice from Jimfbleak. First, I can tell that you didn't intend to write an "advertisement" about your company. We don't assume you're a "bad" person trying to destroy the site. However, this is an encyclopedia, not a business directory. Before I agree to move this to draft space, I'd like to make sure you understand a few fundamental things about Wikipedia. As you've been told, you have a conflict of interest regarding the company you work for. Wikipedia presents a neutral point of view as one of it's most important policies. We cover what reliable and independent sources say about topics. We cover the good, the bad, the ugly, and the beautiful. If you found negative material about your company from independent, reliable sources, would your boss want you including that in your company's article? I would put me in an uncomfortable position, anyway. That's why we have the COI policy, because it is very difficult to write about topics in which you have a COI, no matter how pure your intentions. If I restore the draft, it would be under strict condition that the article be reviewed by one of our Articles for Creation reviewers before the draft was moved back to mainspace. I gotta warn you, this can take months, so you'll need lots and lots of patience. I have taken a look at what was deleted. It doesn't look notable, just a routine company going about its routine business. Why does this company deserve encyclopedic attention? {and be wary of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is a recurring problem with cryptocurrency operations.) Please pay close attention to our notability guidelines. Is it covered WP:INDEPTH by multiple independent, reliable sources? If not, I'll only be prolonging your frustration if I am to restore your work to draft space. I don't wish to discourage you, I want to encourage your editing here, but this article may not be where your efforts are best placed. I've thrown a lot of Wikipedia policies at you, please let me know if I can better help explain them to you. I hope that's useful. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi @78.26:, firstly I am really impressed by how strong and devoted everyone is in this community! Thank you for giving me the detailed reasons and advices above. I would love to follow up on this points you mentioned above. Our CEO is a fair person and I have have no problem nor does he have any problem if I were to write anything negative from independent and reliable resources. You did make valid points regarding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and notability guidelines. Though I think those points make sense, I can't fully comprehend at what point can a company have a Wikipedia page about itself? Companies like Binance, OKEx, and Huobi all have Wikipedia pages about themselves. Where exactly is the cutoff line here? I don't think you judge this purely based on financial metrics, though FTX is ranked pretty high right now based on the financial metrics. I am totally fine to hold this off for now but I am also eager to know at what point do you think I can resume. Again, thank you for your dedication to this community and the time you spent answering my questions!

Daveftx (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Daveftx: Ah, I see I failed to provide you another serving of alphabet soup, namely WP:GNG and more specifically, WP:NCORP. Do multiple, independent, reliable sources talk about the company in-depth? Our notability requirements for ongoing commercial concerns are more stringent than, say, for 17th century classical music composers, in large part because we are overrun with promotionalism and spam, often well disguised as encyclopedia articles. Want proof, take a look at Category:Pending AfC submissions. It's not really about financial metrics, although if your company controlled 80% of the market it would certainly be an argument for notability, for example. The main criteria is, can we write dispassionately and comprehensively about a topic sourced from material from a variety of sources each of which have no vested interest, pro or con, about the topic. Once this criteria is met it is useful, under very limited circumstances, to provide material sourced from your CEO's tweets, for instance. These are possibly reliable (depending on context) but certainly not independent. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi @78.26:, thank you for the additional information and they make a lot of sense! I don't plan to resubmit it anytime soon but is it possible that you restore my deleted article? I want to have it for record keeping purpose as I did put in a lot of work on it. Hope you understand!

Thank you! Daveftx (talk) 09:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I understand. However, there's also (get ready for more alphabet soup!) WP:NOTWEBHOST. How about I email you the wiki code in a txt file. There's several other "Wikis" where you could park this. (but make sure they don't copyright the material...) Would that be an acceptable compromise? If so, click the "Email this user" which should appear on the left when you're on my talk page. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

That would be great! Thank you. I must be blind as I really can't find the "Email this user" button on your user page. Can you please give me more details on how to find it? Daveftx (talk) 03:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

You’re not blind, you probably need to enable email. You’ll find that under “preferences” at the top. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 11:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Deleted page - Vivien Keszthelyi

Dear 78.26, I am writing you on behalf of Vivien Keszthelyi's management team, as we were informed that Keszthelyi's Wikipedia page was deleted. We firmly believe that every international achievement of our Formula 3 racing driver was proved by the neccessary refferences in the article. She has approved Wikipedia pages in three different languages, and we cannot understand why the biography was deleted on the English site. We would like to ask you to restore the page as she is an internationally recognized F3 driver. We can give sources and proof of her championship titles and licenses as well as references if needed for editing the article. --VRSSportGroupManagement (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@VRSSportGroupManagement: I am going to decline to restore this. Most importantly this was the community's decision, not mine, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivien Keszthelyi (3rd nomination). If you feel I have not correctly judged the community's consensus at that discussion, you may have my decision reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review. But first you must change your user name, because it purports to represent an organization or group, and not an individual. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages

I see you recently accepted a pending change to May 11 that did not include a direct source.

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the edit notice on that page, the content guideline and/or the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide. All new additions without references are now being either reverted on-sight or in some cases where the patroller is especially motivated, immediately sourced. I've gone ahead and un-accepted this edit and backed it out.

All the pages in the Days of the Year project have had pending changes protection turned on to prevent vandalism and further addition of entries without direct sources. As a pending changes patroller, please do not accept additions to day of year pages where no direct source has been provided on that day of year page. The burden to provide sources for additions to these pages is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Thank you and please keep up your good work! Toddst1 (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, re-added with required citation. Thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Stupid vandal

@78.26: User:66.204.75.62 has been vandalizing Wikipedia since October 2019, and has never been blocked. I've given a warning to stop, but I know that will never happen. I if this person continues can you block this vandal.Catfurball (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Catfurball: I'm happy to take a look, but I'm not online all the time. The best place for this is WP:AIV. We don't block IP addreses permanently, because the owner can change. We do block some known school IP's for what is effectively permanent. This address only has a few edits, and has only edited in three sessions, including the destructive editing today which caught your attention. Activity from that address ceased 45 minutes before your warning, which was a level four. I think they got bored and quit, but if I block them it will only be for a period of 31 hours (standard first vandalism block) and I'm guessing they won't return for another couple months, so blocking wouldn't accomplish anything. I appreciate your diligence and am very glad you have reverted their edits. If it starts up again today or in the near future, feel free to make an AIV report, or to try to grab my attention. All the best, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Request

@78.26: Can you please give User talk:86.9.128.236 a warning. This person removed the infobox requested on the talk page of Herbert Blomstedt, when it doesn't have an infobox. To me this not good editing, who knows how many articles this editor has done this to. Catfurball (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Catfurball: um, the editor then created the infobox, within the minute. All's good. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• @78.26: Then I suggest that you look closely at Gabrielle Weidner the same editor removed the request for an infobox and then didn't make it. Catfurball (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they did. Catfurball, this is a collaborative project. You've got to give people time to work, and you've got to assume good faith. Since this editor has proven themselves productive, please give a bit of leeway. This editor has since added an infobox to the article. I would suggest you attempt to communicate with the editor before initiating administrator involvement. Sure, it would be helpful if they created the infobox first, and then removed the request, but they may not understand how watchlists work, and that some editors enthusiastically watch certain articles for changes. How about you, in your most diplomatic and cordial language, let them know their order of editing is confusing to some other editors? All the best, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• @78.26: I just gave the editor a warning, that they should do it the other way. I hope this editor will see my message, and start making the infoboxes first instead. Catfurball (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't require a "warning", and to most people it doesn't even look like vandalism. Your first sentence was just fine. By the way, it may be possible for an editor to just remove the infobox request, there are several high-profile, influential editors who detest infoboxes in general. Are you familiar with the infobox wars, where mere mortals should not deign to approach, and even Jimbo fears to tread? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Article deletion

Dear Friend, I refer to the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MauBank WithMe where you decided to delete the article without providing any reasoning as to why you have concluded that the article should be deleted. I am really appalled by this decision as I have taken the time to give very detailed explanation as to why the reasons put forward by the nominator are not valid. For instance, with regards to WP:Not notable, it is clear that the app is only available in Mauritius and therefore we can only expect the sources to be from major Mauritian media outlets only, as it is the case. In addition, some of the reasons provided by the nominator are not valid at all, he does not have a detailed knowledge of Wikipedia policies, for instance, he claimed that as per WP:NOTNEWS, references from newspapers are not acceptable while in fact, WP:NEWSORG encourage the use of reliable newspapers as reference to sustain facts and notability. I believe that the consensus was wrongly interpreted. In this respect, I would be really grateful if you could review your decision and if you think that the article should still be deleted, please advise on exactly which criteria this is being done along with the reasoning. Thanks Kingroyos (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Kingroyos: I judged "delete" to be the consensus of the discussion, and consensus is that the sources you gave are not WP:INDEPENDENT of the topic. If you feel my judgement is in error, you may appeal it at Wikipedia:Deletion review. I hope that is helpful. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Is it possible to have a draft of the deleted article. I would like to improve the article. Thanks --Kingroyos (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Kingroyos:, although this is a formality, I think the Deletion Review should be closed first. At that point I will restore it to draft space. (Remind me when it closes, I can be quite forgetful.) All the best, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, please note that the discussions have been closed. Grateful if you could help to provide a draft. Thanks. Kingroyos (talk)

Deletion review for MauBank WithMe

An editor has asked for a deletion review of MauBank WithMe. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.--Kingroyos (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Kawaibenform

...is almost certainly yet another sockpuppet of TomWatkins1970, as are all the "new" editors over the last few days. Very likely they won't take it to the talk page at all (except to possibly moan about other editors being "vandals" and "bullying", as they always do) but will just revert you. All they've done is copy and pasted the entire listing of this album's releases from Discogs, and the source they are adding is a fan website, very likely one they've set up themselves, with absolutely no source for the sales figures quoted. I've asked for this page to be protected, as almost all the Bros-related pages are, due to this editor's constant sockpuppetry. Richard3120 (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

There you go, you've just been reverted by another completely "new" user... This editor has been at this for over three years now, and has close to 150 blocked socks on Wikipedia and Commons. Richard3120 (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Richard3120: I'm not very good at whack-a-mole, but by behavioural evidence this is a sock of TomWatkins1970. I'm going to block and protect the page. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for editing

Hi 78 sir , thanks for cleaning Draft:Syed Saim Ali i want to know what you actually did ? cleaning up submission means exactly what ? i have added the maximum notable links of newspapers in English & Hindi language. hope you will help me to approve & fix this article more (Where its necessary such as grammar mistakes).

Thanks

Memon KutianaWala (talk) 08:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Memon KutianaWala:. Short answer: I didn't do much of anything. Long answer: I was patrolling the back of the Articles for Creation submissions on a random vandalism patrol, and looking for obviously suitable submissions. You article came up, and while it looked promising I am not familiar enough with the language and the topic area to have given it an automatic "pass". So I "cleaned" it which is a button I push which clears up some extraneous "wiki markup" and formats the submission in a way I (and I think most reviewers) prefer to view it. Since you have taken the time to reach out to me, I'll try to spend some concerted effort reviewing this particular submission in the very near future. All the best, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi 78 Sir

Thank you so much and half references are in urdu language newspapers & television like samaa tv , dunya news , daily pakistan and urdu point and rest references are in english such as dawn news , the tribune , the news , pakistan today (daily english newspaper) , niche (fashion weekly magazine). thanks again in advance sir.

Memon KutianaWala (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks once again 78 sir Memon KutianaWala (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Username

So if you listen to 78 RPM what's the 26 represent? Beeney xx (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Beeney xx: 78.26 is the precise speed of "78rpm" records in North America. It is slightly different in Europe (77.92). See Phonograph record#78 rpm disc developments, third paragraph. All the best! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

AfD

Can you detail how you felt no consensus to be the correct outcome of this AfD? The "Keep" supporters included the SPAs, canvassed editors (with most editing after a long time only to !vote here), and ultimately none of them addressed the actual concerns with the article, but were only spewing the arguments already rejected by WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSNOTABLE as others had also said. However, "Delete" supporters (which included comments by 2 admins, Drmies, Neutrality) have discovered more problems with the article than what I had. Excelse (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I have all the respect in the world for Drmies, but I can't favor people I like, nor can I give extra weight to the arguments of admins, our arguments have the same weight as yours. I really don't feel that you can call a consensus for "delete", nor for "keep". As I said in the close, there's a reason that was left open for so long. I also felt that some of the "keep" arguments weren't addressed, because it is a matter of conflicting interpretation of policies, and not a matter of "right" vs. "wrong". You can, of course, take it to deletion review, if you feel that utilizing extra volunteer time reviewing this is a good use of volunteer resources. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

(ps, nothing against Neutrality, I just haven't had the pleasure of working alongside them much) 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Ha, I thought I had some good arguments! True, my arguments aren't stronger because I'm an admin, or a fan of Miles Davis on vinyl, or a decent cook. This AfD was always going to be hard because so much of what's done here is precisely that kind of trivia, and that kind of splitting off. Death of Stevie Ray Vaughan is one such example; completely needless. And in this case, we were also dealing with just an absolutely lousy article. But the yes-sayers typically point at an overwhelming amount of sourcing (or "sourcing"), and that usually sways enough voters. Excelse, I'm not about to question 78.26's judgment, who I know as a very reasonable person, and I'm not even going to look over the entire discussion: I find it saddening that we have become such a storehouse for trivia, and such AfDs show it. If only a fraction of that energy had been put into really important articles, our project would improve greatly. I just made a few minor tweaks to As I Lay Dying, which is a shambles--but instead we focus on the entertainment trivia of K-pop and MJ and rasslin'. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I dunno, Miles Davis on vinyl sounds like a pretty compelling argument for about anything. I suppose, though, what I should have said is that the debate is not about whether this is a good article, or whether there's garbage there, or whether some of the sources are dubious, or irrelevant, the question at hand was "is this topic worthy of inclusion in a generalist or specialist encyclopedia. And in my judgement there was no consensus on that point, even if I felt consensus was more towards "delete." Now, I have been wrong many a time before, and will be again, and could be on this particular issue. I think Drmies makes a good point, in that sometimes it is just more advantageous to this encyclopedia to improve the topics and articles you are interested in or have particular knowledge about, rather than waste time worrying about what other people are doing (excepting vandalism of course). For instance, I'm arriving at the point where I think all record label articles (a specialty of mine) for any company formed after 1990 should be deleted, they're just promotional vehicles for the most part. And every record company before 1960 should have an article. But we all have unreasonable biases, and being a collaborative project has generally resulted a fairly rational set of guidelines and decisions. That said, our aberrations can be whoppers! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	It's a message to appreciate you volunteer , you are doing a great job in wikipedia by contributing. Have a good day Merilla33455 (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Cultural impact of Michael Jackson

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cultural impact of Michael Jackson. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Excelse (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Human rights in Asia

Your recent revert was inappropriate. It specifically mentioned using the talk page when I created a section for discussion on the talk before making my edit. YOU did not use the talk page.2601:601:180:1180:9C93:6AC5:FE1B:6B1F (talk) 05:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human rights in Asia (2nd nomination) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangejuicedude (talk • contribs) 09:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Orangejuicedude: Your addition was against consensus as established in the AfD. You may use the talk page to try to gain a new consensus, as consensus can change. You may nominate the article for another AfD, enough time has passed, and you have done that. I agree with several of your edits, and hardly did a wholesale reversion. There is no need to make this personally contentious. Happy editing. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Just admit you did not see the talk page. It isn't that hard, bro. You also disregarded simple MoS. How are you an admin? It was a lot harder back in my day. How did Wikipedia turn in to such shit in a few years? You don't even have an FA under your belt since you have more fun being a police officer. You obviously care more at playing Wikipedia instead of building Wikipedia.Orangejuicedude (talk) 06:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I see my attempts at cordial collaboration have failed significantly. I am amazed by the amount of vitriol here, considering I didn't revert you wholesale, but disagreed with two of the tags you placed on the article, while leaving the rest alone. . I made those changes at 05:10 on May 1 [3]. You (as the IP address) made the talk page discussion regarding "single source" (which I don't necessarily agree with) at 05:11 May 1. How droll. Now, regarding "back on my day". Your inability to collaborate and your strong POV does make me highly suspicious that your a blocked/banned account. I do hope the joy you bring others is returned unto you fourfold. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

He admitted it. Claimed at the AfD it was a fresh start, but he was blocked for harassment and that hasn't change. Doug Weller talk 14:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: This editor keeps claiming things were so much better "in their day". I looked at the original accounts history. We started about the same time. If Wikipedia had embodied the values he displays, as he claims, I would have never stayed around. What a horrid place this would be. It's really unfortunate, indeed he has true skill at producing content. Thanks for the note, and happy editing! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

And thank you. I see the IP's been blocked also. Doug Weller talk 14:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Current

There are flaws in the process. Basically biases are evident; incompetence as well. Momentum7 (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Uh, what does that have to do with you blanking a conversation? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you can even fix this situation. Here's some of it in a synopsis. Erroneous judgment on the admin's part, users who have no knowledge of current entertainers or their value, inept use of afd practices, no adequate solutions to appeal, and more. Momentum7 (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The appeal is in the deletion discussion. Consensus was clearly to delete based upon Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If you feel the topic meets those guidelines, you need to demonstrate that with multiple reliable sources, each containing significant information about the topic, and that are independent of the subject. This is not a judgement about the talent or potential of the artist(s) in question, it is merely the community's consensus on what is notable for an encyclopedia and what isn't. There's a lot of old (really old!) record labels I'd love to include here, but they aren't notable by our standards, for instance I could not rescue Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dixieland Records, even though it is a topic dear to my heart. Anyway, please carefully review Wikipedia:Notability (music), I think it will be helpful. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

PS, if you think the administrator judged consensus incorrectly, you may appeal at Wikipedia:Deletion review, but I must forewarn you, I think there's zero chance the community will find that SpinningSpark closed it incorrectly. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

A better idea is to put the article back. The subject of the article is young - another bias against age. Her privacy is clearly part of the setting. She has a presence on the typical social media sites but lack of great information has nothing to do with talent, ability, and such and everything to do with the fact that she is guarding her information. It's a given I will appeal at deletion review. Momentum7 (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The point is the comments are illegitimate. Momentum7 (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

If you ignore my advice, all I can say is "good luck with that." 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Was it the competition?

You had asked about the whys and wherefors about opposition to Samuel May Williams's bank in Galveston, and I answered that Henson had attributed it to a faction of anti-banking politics. This is a somewhat well-known trope about Texas politics of the period. However, I just stumbled onto an article that I'm reading for my own research on another topic: [4]. The article points out that Benjamin A. Shepherd established a bank in Houston in 1854. Might Shepherd and his bank's investors have also applied political pressure to shut down a competing bank in nearby Galveston? This is nothing that I can use for Wikipedia since does not even mention Williams, but I thought you might be interested. Best, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi 78.26, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Janis joplin

She is the grand niece of Scott Joplin whether you like it or not. It is in the family Bible. A impeccable source . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.81.237 (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Not according to WP:RS, which is our policy. And... does the "family bible" (assuming in good faith that you are indeed related to Janice) clearly state that the "Scott Joplin" listed there is the same Scott as the famous ragtime composer. There have undoubtedly been several people named Scott Joplin. Also, please note that personal attacks, in edit summaries or anywhere else, is not allowed. Your editing has been entirely disruptive on several fronts, you have been warned on your talk page, and I will be watching for further disruption. I hope you can learn to be a productive, collaborative editor. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Takahiro Yoshikawa

In an act o boldness and boredom in corona times I dared to write my first article about Japanese Pianist Takahiro Yoshikawa, but as soon as I hit enter I was greeted by 1) Accusations of having financial interests 2) my article got placed on a list for deletion can you drive by the article and give me some feedback in the discussion page? Fthobe (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Fthobe:, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but it's not promised that it's easy to edit. First let's discuss the notability of Yoshikawa. I've done a lookaround, and the only thing I find in reliable sources is this CD review by WCRB. The sheer amount of ads on corriere.it make it a bit suspect as a reliable source, but it may be, I haven't looked into it in depth. You mention an NHK broadcast or broadcasts. You give a date, I can't tell by your citation exactly what the citation is. (Kudos for including inline citations in the first place, they're tricky...) The American Record Guide looks like a solid source, is there an online version (not required, I use offline sources all the time.) Anyway, please do have a look at our WP:RS and WP:NMUSIC guidelines, and if this topic fits, you can make the argument at the AfD page. Regarding what you have already argued, please be more specific about the "notable newspaper articles in Japan and Italy". You need to provide more evidence than just say-so.

Regarding the Conflict of Interest WP:COI, I have a lot of trust in Praxidicae. Please note that you are allowed to state otherwise if you have no COI. Also please note that COI involves more than just financial interest. That is just our template, the standard wording that everyone gets if a concern is raised regarding COI. How about if I ask as politely as I can, without prejudice, malice, or accusation, if you have any personal or professional relationship to or with Yoshikawa, his record label, or his management company. Even if you do, it doesn't mean you can't edit here. It's a disclosure, not a death sentence! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi @78.26:, thank you so much for your exhaustive response, this is the first really helpful answer I got since I started that article. It's a big help!

First things first, regarding the COI: there was a concert of the artist in the building next to our office yesterday (we share an office building with a music studio) for a production of a live stream of him. I was already aware of him due to previous concerts in Italy and started googling due to a specific track I heard. I was in no way instigated to write an article, but I enjoyed his music from my office window as you'd probably do if Bruce Springsteen plays in a park close to your home. I have no personal relationship to the artist nor have I been motivated by any 3rd party to write this article. What I find really weird coming from collaborative platforms such as Quora and Stackoverflow, I feel not only that Wikipedia is rather complex (that is fine for me, you try, you learn), but also not really easy to navigate instruction wise and I believe a share of authors could really take you as example to help guide new authors. It's really easy to get caught up in discussions here instead of getting some helpful guidance. BTW: I once (almost 15 years ago) made a similar experience when trying to correct a wrong article clearly stating a COI as I was employed by the company the article was about and clearly stated that. I am really not contact shy and discuss extensively if I get a chance ;) Generally I get sometimes the impression that established authors prefer to block content rather then helping to improve it.

Regarding relevance I checked and he ticks two out of the relevance requirements, which should be enough in my understanding.

Some notes regarding my sources: Regarding Italian sources: please keep in mind that sources such as New York Times address a much larger english speaking audience. While Corriere della Sera (check out the Wiki Article) is Italy's largest newspaper by circulation it's much harder for them monetize with paid content. Therefore you will naturally see much more advertising, something that you will encounter on almost all online media of relevance in non-english- and non-german-speaking countries. I believe it£s sometimes really hard to cite from foreign media in Wikipedia because sources get easily dismissed instead of checked out for their value.

Regarding NHK: ok, with help of my poor kanji knowledge and google translate I managed to get a source from the NHK Blog (unfortunatly my Japanese is not good enough to figure out more). I assume NHK as national broadcaster is a viable source given that it£s the biggest broadcaster in Japan.

I have an example of the program below and I get to following citation (copied from the wikipedia citation template page and filled with the content. It looks correct to me, content wise but I seem not to get the link right or missunderstand the concept of link in this context.

{{cite episode
 | title = NHK Presents: "Classic Club"
 | episode-link = [https://www.nhk.or.jp/classic-blog/2015/08/ Classic Club Blog with Episode Description]
 | series = Classic Club
 | series-link = [https://www.nhk.jp/p/c-club/ts/6N5K88R4Q5/ Classic Club Website]
 | network = [[NHK]]
 | station = [[NHK BS Premium]]
 | air-date = 2015-08-25
 }}

Original Source: Classic Club Blog with Episode Description NHK BS Premium "Classic Club" Broadcast: Monday-Friday, 5 am-5:55am Program Content: A classical music program that delivers live recitals of solo and chamber music by leading domestic and overseas performers. So far, world-class performers such as Argerich, Pilesch, Kremer, Vengerov, Schiff, Maisky, Quiken, Peraia, Akiko Suwauchi, Daishin Kashimoto, Yuzuko Horimei have appeared. September lineup (scheduled to be broadcast) ■ September 1 (Tue) -4 (Fri) Popular performances 4 major tenors and wind instrument masters [...]4th (Fri) Fabrizio Meloni (Cl) & Takahiro Yoshikawa (Pf)[...]

@Fthobe: Actually, I'm a much bigger classical music fan than I am a Springsteen fan. Yes, this can be a difficult place to navigate. I'm sorry you feel that folks aren't helpful, but I invite you to look at it from our perspective. Wikipedia has become one of the most important sites, and because Google gives Wikipedia articles such an important place in its listings, it is highly desirable for most people (who have something to sell, and that includes artists) and businesses to have an article here. We are a volunteer cooperative. We are overrun with people pushing themselves and their products. It is wearying and it can make you distrust human nature in general. So I ask for your patience, understanding and forgiveness on behalf of the community. Regarding Corriere della Sera, I saw another editor I *highly* respect call it a reliable source, so that's good enough for me. I have the same problem regarding advertisements when trying to review articles with information from Africa or the Indian subcontinent, the most reliable sources are covered with advertisements, for just the reason you describe. Again regarding the COI, just state on your talk page that you wrote this article because you enjoyed the concert, and that you have no other connection. That will suffice, and be the end of it. (unless all your subsequent edits are favorable and only favorable to the career of this particular pianist.) Regarding the Articles for Deletion discussion, you can quash it by naming additional sources in the Italian and Japanese newspapers you mention. it's called WP:GNG, the General Notability Guideline, which says in general that a topic which is discussed in-depth by multiple reliable WP:INDEPENDENT sources is worthy of an encyclopedia article. I gave you an additional source which should count for something (WCRB), so I think you're well on your way to establishing notability. Again, I hope that helps. By the way, I recommend the Articles for Creation method for new editors. It will let you work on an article without fear of deletion (unless it is a blatant copyright violation, gibberish, or hate speech, etc.). It won't be indexed by Google until it is moved into the mainspace by an established editor, but you will receive helpful advice. The downside is that, again, we're overwhelmed with promotional submissions, so it can take time to get reviewed. I see you haven't been invited to the Teahouse yet. I'll send an invitation. There you will find a LOT of very helpful, very knowledgeable editors who will answer all kinds of questions. Oh yes, you don't have to "ping" me on my own talk page, any time anyone makes a change on my talk page I get a notification, just like you do. I "pinged" you because you don't get an automatic notification when my talk page is modified, and I want to be sure you know I've replied to you. All the best, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, you have been awesomely patient with me :) I already posted a question in the Teahouse to understand better if I should get flagged as paid for work related issues. Tomorrow (it£s actually quiet late here) I beef up my article and see if it survives deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fthobe (talk • contribs) 22:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey 78.26, I won't ping you this time (the temptation is always there though ;), so I expanded the article with more sources and followed your line of discussion, without much success I believe. Would you mind taking a look at the article and give me your oppinion if it qualifies or not? Fthobe (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC) (did not forget to sign.

I've taken a closer look at what you've provided, and left my !vote. You'll probably like it. AfD discussions run for a week unless consensus becomes overwhelmingly obvious. I would imagine a reviewing administrator will re-list this for discussion. Obviously I can't do that since I am now WP:INVOLVED in the discussion. This is borderline case. In the meantime, I hope you have found other things of interest to improve. Starting your Wikipedia "career" by trying to write a new article is about the worst thing you can do. Of course.... that's exactly what I did when I started....if that offers any encouragement. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks!Fthobe (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for the service and dedication to the ordinary users and the community. Precious Stone 03:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, that is very kind! I'm glad that was helpful. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for WooPlus

User:Throwawiki has asked for a deletion review of WooPlus. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 20:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Offensive revision

Hi, I saw you were in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests. Could you possibly check the first revision made on June 11th, 2020 to CKIX-FM (not providing link to revision to prevent it from gaining more publicity) and delete it if it fits the criteria? If I'm correct, it fits the criteria for "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material" at WP:REVDEL. Thanks! —GalaxyDog^{talk • contribs} 15:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@GalaxyDog: Agreed. Done. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

78.26, thank you! —GalaxyDog^{talk • contribs} 15:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi 78.26, what about the one I reverted here? Thanks, —GalaxyDog^{talk • contribs} 21:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

done 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again! —GalaxyDog^{talk • contribs} 21:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Conrad Gerle

Hey, we could take a look at this one too to complete the German lute collection on wiki, what do you say? Fthobe (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure. Rather out of curiosity, by what standard are you judging "complete"? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 11:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey mate, complete was meant ironically, but I ran out of lutenists to write about:) Fthobe (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Fthobe: Haha! Despite what some people say, there is never a shortage of articles left to write. For instance, you can always find things here (there's got to be lutenists in there somewhere), and the list itself needs a regular curator. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)