User talk:DESiegel/Archive 13

This is an archive of User talk:DESiegel. Please do not change it in any way. DES ^(talk) 02:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Please help me understand what this means.

Hi DESiegel.  I hope I'm not being too much of a bother, but I need to ask for your help again. I just got an email notice from Wikipedia that my secondary sandbox (User:Richard27182/sandbox2) was "patrolled" by a certain user. (The contents don't seem to have been altered in any way.) Does this simply mean that for whatever reason someone looked at my sandbox; OR is it something serious that I should be concerned about. As always, thank you for your help.
Richard27182 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, {{|Richard27182}}, this is nothing to worry about. Because the page was realativly newly created (within the past 60 days) it shows up on a list of recently created pages. There are editors who do new page patrol. This means they chek out new pages to see if there are problems that need to be addressed. The notice means that one of these editors checked your second sandbox, and marked it as checked so other patrollers need not bother. This a poerfectly nornmal procdure. Follow the link above for more about new page patrol. DES ^(talk) 11:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Incorrectly placed comma and full stop

Hi Des I am sorry to upset the editors. They were kind enough to do an edit but it is grammatically incorrect. The section "Early Life" on the Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge page has an incorrectly placed comma (should be immediately after Flight Dispatcher) and a full stop (should be immediately after 30 pounds). Please do fix up if you are able Much thanks and again, sorry. Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.149.113.236 (talk) 03:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done. It was already done before I saw this message, and i think before you left it. DES ^(talk) 04:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, DESiegel/Archive 13. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by DES ^(talk) 21:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Signature error

User talk:RobbyTheElf only got a time stamp and no username so it appears five tildes were used. It says "ask me on my talk page" so I suggest you add the missing part. It could cause confusion if I did it. The in-universe style of the article was confusing but "Robby The Elf" is apparently the stage name of a real musician. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, PrimeHunter, I fixed it. DES ^(talk) 23:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Feeding India

Hi DES, your message at User talk:AishwaryaFI was excellent. I have shamelessly copied it as part of my message at User talk:Ahaan chopra. His user page is yet another version of Feeding India, with even more blatant copyvio. I have nominated it for speedy deletion. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome. I see that anoher admin has blocked Ahaan chopra and deleted that account's User page. DES ^(talk) 12:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, DESiegel/Archive 13. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by DES ^(talk) 16:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

A beer for you!

Congrats on 10 years of Wikipedia! Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. DES ^(talk) 22:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Andrew Brown (minister)

Materialscientist (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks much!

Changed the film summary as suggested. Thanks again for the guidance!

Sanfordstreet talk 01:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi

If you find time for it, please take a look at the article Forest Sami, any improvements are welcomed. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Mahler on the Couch

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations from Richard27182

Hi DESiegel. I noticed on your user page that you are now a member of the Wikipedia Ten Year Society. I just want to offer my congratulations.
Richard27182 (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Hello. Thanks for overseeing Education Program:Consumer Reports/Choosing Wisely Canada (summer 2015). I think the students in this are medical students, or at least in public health, and it is a small class. This is online and I have three live presentations that I will give, plus some recordings. It wraps up in a month. I have done this before. I am not sure if we have collaborated on anything previously - maybe. If you have any suggestions for managing this then signal me and I will do what I can. If you would - watch the students and comment on any first edits. Thanks. Let me know if there is any class which you would like for me to watch. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tom Lawes has been accepted

Tom Lawes, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Flat Out (talk) 03:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James Bond distribution rights, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Variety. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

AccountabilityGroup

Orginal Message:

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "AccountabilityGroup", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it appears to represent a group rather than a single individual. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. DES (talk) 00:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I am a single user and not a group. This was orginally going to be my business name but never started the business.

I just edit pages or add a page once in a while.

Next steps please?

AccountabilityGroup (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, AccountabilityGroup. I urge you to take the following steps:

1. Read Wikipedia:Changing username
2. Pick a new username you would like that doesn't sound like a buisness name or one havin special privilages (read Wikipedia:Username policy for details.
3. Check at Special:CentralAuth to make sure your chosen new user name is not already taken. If it is, keep trying until you find one you like that isn't.
4. Go to Special:GlobalRenameRequest to apply for your new name by email (fastest, but requires use of email) or to Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple (email not required). Follow all insturctions.
5. Your existing account will be moved to the new name you requested. This may take a few days, but not usually more.

I hope those are clear and easy to follow steps. DES ^(talk) 00:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Bilfinger Construction - once Germany's second largest building company

Is Wikipedia really better with Bilfinger Construction deleted? Eldizzino (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Eldizzino, Wikipedia is better when an uncited, promotional version of such an article does not exist. Speedy deletion is no bar to creating a proper version at the same title, and indeed often spurs such improved recreation. DES ^(talk) 12:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yet another question from Richard27182

Hi DESiegel. I have a quick question for you. I sometimes see article references end with the words "Retrieved on [such and such a date]." Does that mean what I think it means: that that's the date when the editor verified and included that reference, and that it was accurate (and if applicable, the link worked) as of that date? And if that's the case, when would it be appropriate for me to use it, and when should it not be used. As always I really appreciate your help.
Richard27182 (talk) 08:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Richard27182, that is just what it means. If you are using the citation templates, such as {{tl}cite web}, {{cite news}}, [[tl|cite journal}}, {{cite book}} and the like, this can be generated with |access-date= or |accessdate=. There is some difference of opinion on what sort of references should use it. At the very least, when the source is a web page that might change it should always be used. Some say it shouldn't be used when the source is a static web page, such as the image of a newspaper or a book. I say that it should be used anytime a URL is supplied as part of a source citation. It should, in any case, indicate that on the specified date the link worked, and the contents supported the specified statement(s) in the article. That way, if the page is later taken down or changes, the date is a starting point for a search for a useful archived copy. This format is not used with a purely print source, such as a newspaper or book not found online. DES ^(talk) 12:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Request re RfC

Regarding your closure of my RfC yesterday: not to argue anything, but would you help me understand what the problem was? You cited:

• "improper, non-actionable RfC",
• "non-neutral", and
• "result could not be used to edit the relevant guideline page."

Perhaps the last item connects with the "non-actionable"? My comment would be not directly, but that deeper delving into the situation is needed before any change can be contemplated. Are RfCs not appropriate for querying the community as to whether a problem exists? Similarly, I don't understand how non-neutral is a problem here. Yes, I was trying find instances supporting a certain view, but that is actually the view I doubt, and where I have no objection to "building the other side's argument" (especially where the proponent seems not up to it) I don't see why it should be an issue. In respect of WP:WRFC#Neutrality, I would argue that asking for instances of something (as a means of establishing existence directly) is not biased in the way that asking for comments that something exists would be. But perhaps not?

I would be grateful if you could aid my understanding on this. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

J. Johnson, first of all, take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment it says, among other things:

• "Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it always helps to first discuss the matter with the other parties "
• "RfCs are a way to attract more attention to a discussion about making changes to pages, including articles, essays, guidelines, policies, and many other kinds of pages."

To me, this means that an RFC ought to ask a question whose answer will be actionable

• "The use of requests for comment on user conduct has been discontinued.

It seemed to me that your RFC was aimed at arguing that a statement had been made without supporting evidence, and was intended to bolder the argument that no such evidence could be found That may have been a mistake on my part.

• "Note that the "Policies and Guidelines" category is for discussing changes to the policies and guidelines themselves, not for discussing how to apply the existing policies and guidelines to a specific article."
• "Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the RfC template"

IMO, failure to make the RFC statement itself neutral is highly improper, and IME it leads to failed RFCs that produc lots of drama and no useful result.

• "Keep the RfC statement short and simple. Statements are often phrased as questions, for example: "Should this article say in the lead that John Smith was a contender for the Pulitzer Prize?""
• "The statement should be self-contained, and should not assume that the section title is available"

Your RFC assumed not just the section title but much of the prior discussion on the page, it seemed to me.

An RfC on how the policy ought to be changed, or whether the current formulation is liable to abuse or causes bad results might be useful. But in my view an RfC that appears to seek support or opposition to a mere debating point in earlier discussion, and one that was at least arguably rhetorical exaggeration at that is to focus on the prior discussion itself and/or the editors adn their conduct, not on what policy changes would help the project. That is what I meant by "improper, non-actionable" and "result could not be used to edit the relevant guideline page." Do you see my points now? Or do you still disagree? DES ^(talk) 03:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not that I disagree, more that I have yet to find the light of understanding. And I thank you for your time and patience in explaining this.

My understanding of your views is that there are two main objections: non-actionable, and non-neutral. As to the first, I agree that the question raised is (as I said above) not directly actionable. But regarding the question orginally raised ("How important is WP:CITEVAR?") a point was raised that CITEVAR is possibly counter-productive. My RfC was an attempt to resolve that point, which might then be "actionable" in resolving (one way or the other) the question of CITEVAR's importance. Which in turn might (or not) bear on any question of changing CITEVAR, and therefore (or so I think) an important point to consider. But perhaps you are saying too indirect, that an RfC can be used only for specific proposals? Not for establishing any consensus that might lead to specific proposals?

My RfC was indeed explicitly aimed at resolving a point "made without supporting evidence". While a lack of results would indeed bolster the argument against, any credible showing of such instances would pretty much settle the matter the other way. Is this not reasonably neutral? (What I was seeking was not "support or opposition" in the usual sense of a great clamor for and against, but of specific evidence that might settle the point.)

If I am mistaken anywhere, then so be it, but I would appreciate a better understanding of how that is.

BTW: You suggest that an RfC on "whether the current formulation is liable to abuse or causes bad results might be useful." You might note the distinction between bad results from reasonable application of an inherently flawed formulation, and from abuse of a reasonable formulation, perhaps by "admins". The latter is, of course, not the fault of the tool, and I think discussion of "admin abuse" tends to be non-useful. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

coding error?

I dont think the coding that you entered at the end of this post [1] is working the way you intended it to. I think is displaying the user name of the most recent person to edit the page and not your name (or at least for me now, it is displaying my user name).-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, TRPoD. I have fixed that page. It may be that {{Request ping}} still needs work. DES ^(talk) 19:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

My RfA

Pavlov's RfA reward Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Neutral so you get a reasonable two cookies, just cooling off. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

Stewart Holley nominated for deletion

I need help with this one. What can I do?

Nomination of Stewart Holley for deletion[edit source]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stewart Holley is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stewart Holley until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Safiel (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renee530 (talk • contribs)

In one sense, there is nothing you need to do, Renee530. A discussion has been opened about whether the article Stewart Holley should be deleted or not. The policy-based consensus of those editors who comment will determine the outcome. If you think that the article should be retained, then your best option is to establish the Notability of Stewart Holley. You should do this by finding and adding to the article citations to reliable sources that discuss Stewart Holley in some detail and that are independent of Stewart Holley. This means no blogs, no press releases, nothing from Stewart Holley himself or any team he has played on or anyone closely associated with him. Newspaper or magazine sources are good. And in detail means more then a mere mention that he plays for a team or in a particular game. Also, the sources should not be mere local publications, but be regional, national, or international in scope, if possible. If such publications can't be found, then the article will probably be deleted, and not recreated until and unless such sources can be cited. Also read the Basketball notability guideline.

If you do manage to find and cite such sources, post to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stewart Holley and describe your findings. Note that in general amateur and semi-pro players are not considered notable just for playing. Good luck.

And by the way, when you post a message to someone on his or her talk page on a new subject, you should normally put it in a new section, as it says at the top of my talk page. And when a particular article is involved, a wiki-link to that article saves time for everyone. DES ^(talk) 16:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

For your further information, Renee530 WP:NHOOPS is a shorthand for our guideline on notability of basketball players. It basically says that a player must have played at least one game in a fully professional major (national level) league to be considered notable for playing basketball. WP:GNG is a shorthand for the General Notability Guideline which defines the major ways that any subject can be notable, primarily by reliable independent coverage in some depth. I urge you to follow both links and read both pages. DES ^(talk) 16:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Winner Twins Again

Dear DES ^(talk), Please review the new Winner Twins Page I edited here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SciFiChronicle/sandbox Thanks in advance, hope I got it right this time SciFiChronicle (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

my submission was denied for my article

I made some changes and trimmed what I felt were Peacock Terms but wondered if you could take a brief look and offer me some suggestions. I do feel I have many independent reliable sources I have cited for the article. I have also added links to her personal life that I would have added but felt it made the tone more business than personal. I just want to know if there is anything I can do or change to get the biography accepted since she is clearly worthy of being on wikipedia. If its anything I have done incorrectly I would like to correct it, delete it....whatever needs done to comply to get her biography accepted. thanks for all, mary Paulhus15 (talk) 08:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Paulhus15, I made a couple of edits to the draft, and I will make a longer further comment when I have the chance. DES ^(talk) 13:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

don't even know how to say thank you for your help, suggestions, corrections and input on the biography I am working on. I just signed on and was about to work on the ref citations and see many of them are already completed. my sincere gratitude for all. mary Paulhus15 (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I am happy to help, Mary. When you can, help others in turn here or elsewhere. Please note that not all of the chages were my work, see the page history.

Another user filled in several citations with the reFill tool. I someti4ems use a very similaer tool, called reflinks, which is available on the gadgets tab of the Wikipedia preferences page. These tools grab as much metadata as they can from the linked source document and fill out a citation template. However, they often can't do as complete a job as a human can working manually, because outside web pages have no standard format for where things such as date and author and name of site are placed. You might want to enhance the citations made with this tool.

I noted that in this edit you took a citation I had added using a template and turned it into one that did NOT use a template. Do you dislike the cite templates? Some editors don't like them, and they are not at all required. Others think they make things easier. But it is a good idea for any particular article to be reasonably consistent in their use or non-use, although at the draft stage this is not very important. DES ^(talk) 20:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I love it. It looks fantastic. I was just about to try doing the citations (I had gotten behind a few walls here today at work to compare what to do) and when I returned home and realized you and Timtrent had helped I think with most of the list. I profusely thanked him as well. Definitely I will help here or elsewhere if someone asked. Its all good karma. Not sure if its ready for re-submission but I think its looking pretty close to what might be accepted here. Paulhus15 (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

thank you so much for all. she will be so happy and proud to be here Paulhus15 (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

A great quibble deserves a kitten

After your quibble I decided to alter, slightly, the standard replies I use when reviewing to encompass your thoughts. A day when we learn something is always a good day.

Fiddle Faddle 16:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	you're fantastic. thanks for all Paulhus15 (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

And still yet another question from Richard27182

Hi DESiegel.
      I have a question that I've not been able to find an answer to in all the help material.  I've been involved in an RFC which has very recently been formally closed by an uninvolved editor. I believe the uninvolved editor interpreted the postings by the involved editors correctly and reached a completely appropriate conclusion, and I am very satisfied with the outcome. My question is this:

• When an RFC is formally closed by an uninvolved editor, assuming the uninvolved editor has acted appropriately, is there anything that those who might not be so satisfied with the result can do to try to get the decision reversed? Or is the closer's decision pretty much locked in?

I hope the decision stands, but if there is any way it could be "appealed" so to speak, I'd at least want to be prepared for it. Here is a link to the closed RFC: *CLOSED RFC*.
      (I'm sure this could not be considered "canvassing" since the help I'm asking for is simply the answer to a question; and besides, the RFC is closed now anyway.)
      As always, I very much appreciate your help and advice.
Richard27182 (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Richard27182 An RFC is simply a way of forming and documenting consensus. And it is very clear that consensus can change. There is no formal appeal process as such, but if at a later time an editor thinks the decision should be changed, discussion or a new RFC could revise it. However, it is usually frowned on to try to reconsider such a decision until some time has elapsed, but ther3e is no formal standard for how much time. I would advise you, if yoiu are concerned with the matter, to put the page on your watch-list but not to otherwise worry about any future "appeals". DES ^(talk) 10:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel. If I'm understanding you correctly, it sounds like the current status is not permanently locked in, but probably no one will attempt to change it right away; although the issue may get revisited sometime in the future. (Please correct me if I'm not understanding correctly.) As always, thank you for your help.
Richard27182 (talk) 11:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Richard27182, yes you are correct. Pretty much nothing on Wikipedia is "permanently locked in". Given a proper source, or consensus, any article content may be changed at any time. The very basic foundational policies are more or less locked in, but all else is subject to change, if the community thinks proper. DES ^(talk) 11:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.
Richard27182 (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Can I change the name of the 'Small plate movement' article?

Hi, thanks for your feedback on my article: 'Small Plate Movement.' I've realised that there isn't really a lot out there on the 'Movement' itself, but I do have a lot of secondary sources for the 'smaller plate study' itself. Therefore, I think the article would work if it was named the 'Smaller Plate Study' instead. Can I have the article name changed or do I have to create a whole new article? Roxydog13 (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

sure you can, Roxydog13. move the page using the Page Move item on the page menu. DES ^(talk) 19:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Trishneet007

Looks like someone trying to pretend to be Trishneet in order to make Trishneet look bad. There's a name for it (reverse sock?). Anyway it's a duck that quacks like the same sock nominator who was blocked. -- GreenC 15:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't know, Green Cardamom, sockpuppet checks are not at all my specialty, and I was in no way involved with the one on Trishneet. DES ^(talk) 17:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry! I confused you with another admin with a similar name and anyway, I'm just confused. All taken care of. -- GreenC 17:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem, Green Cardamom, thanks. DES ^(talk) 17:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Takeshi Murata

I think I've put just about everything into the Takeshi Murata page that belongs there (and probably then some!). He now has a more detailed page than some other artists at a comparable stage in their careers, but on the other hand, the fact that his work comprises animations means that it made sense to point to key works, so that at least portions of each artwork can be experienced by Wikipedia readers as they learn more about him. I think what I've pulled together gives a bit of a narrative through some career highlights - but perhaps you can take a look and edit or add anything that might be missing, please? Thank you for your previous edits, too. RadBanana (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course I will, RadBanana. One minor point, please start new topics in new sections on a talk page like this, it avoids confusion. DES ^(talk) 02:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, still learning the formatting. RadBanana (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@RadBanana: It is a minor point. You can read WP:Talk and Help:Using talk pages if you like, but they are not vital. DES ^(talk) 02:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Id say its looking pretty good, @RadBanana:. I made some small format changes. There are some news stories linked at: http://www.ratio3.org/artists/takeshi-murata/press and it may be that some of them could serve as additional sources. I am tempted to write to Murata and ask for freely licenses images, but who know how long that might take. DES ^(talk) 02:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I know about the news stories at that link and have looked through a few of them, but I'm not sure that there's much that's quotable. I figure that getting a basic description of some key works (I may add some text about Pink Dot) that may encourage readers to follow the links and watch may be the right amount of info, and then leave it up to them to find and read all of the prose by the critics at the links. It's your call on asking Murata for pics, but the can be added whenever.RadBanana (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't reviewed the stories, RadBanana, I just noticed them in case they are useful. Pics would be good, but I may wait until I'm slightly less busy on other matters. No rush on that. Again this looks pretty good to me. Woukld you object to a WP:DYK nom? DES ^(talk) 11:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous IP edits to Tell MAMA

Hi, thanks for protecting my talk comment [2]. I am convinced these anonymous ips are editing as agents of Tell MAMA. Hopefully things will settle down, but if not do you think it would help to block anonymous ips from editing this article? --Flexdream (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome, Flexdream, and you may well be right about their acting as agents of Tell MAMA. Usually semi-protection is only done when the disruptive edits are frequent and persist enough, from enough different IPs that it can't be handled by normal reverts, nor by a range block. But the place to ask is WP:RFP. They aren't pure vandals, they did have a point with the "ballad" that should never have been there, and the inline link to Burton's blog. DES ^(talk) 17:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Unmatched quotation mark

Hi, there is an unmatched quotation mark at the end of ALT1 in Template:Did you know nominations/Takeshi Murata. If you intended to quote something, a beginning quotation mark needs to be added. I suspect that you copied the original hook and edited it for ALT1, and the quotation mark is an extraneous remnant, in which case it should be removed. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Mandarax. You are absolutely correct, that quote mark was an editing artifact left from modifying a copy of the first hook so as not to use a direct quote. I have removed it. Are you reviewing the DYK nom, by the way? DES ^(talk) 22:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not reviewing it. I was just going through all of the nominations, doing some gnomework. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

A very simple question

Hi DESiegel. I have a very simple and straightforward question for you. I know that both "{{ping|Whoever}}" and "{{U|Whoever}}" will cause the person's name to appear as a link in the posting, and will notify them that their name has been mentioned in a posting. I also know that functionally they differ in that one will cause just the name to appear, while the other will surround the name with an "@" symbol and a colon. What I would like to know is: When is it considered more appropriate to use the one over the other and vice versa? Whenever possible, I like to do things in the most appropriate way. Thank you.
Richard27182 (talk) 10:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Richard. Either is perfectly appropriate. I personally tend to prefer {{U}}, but many almost always use {{ping}}. There is also {{reply to}}. And even a simple, untemplated link to a user page. like [[User:Richard27182]] has the same effect, all the templates do is create such a link and for,mat it a bit. {{ping}} is used more to directly address someone, most often at the start of a comment. the "@" convention is borrowed from Facebook, I think. I use ping when I want to attract several people to the same thread, but otherwise I prefer to put such a link into running text, as i did here. For that {{U}} works better i think. But it is just a matter of personal style, no more. In any case remember that the link must be added as part of a signed comment in the same edit where a signature is added, or the notification doesn't happen. See Wikipedia:Notifications for more info. DES ^(talk) 10:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Biography help requested

Thank you for the contact . I am learning that wikipedia is a language all it's own. I am wanting to create a biography (not mine personally) page. I've read, I've perused, and watched some video-but I am missing something. Is there a link in which I could be taken through this process ? Once I understand and complete this first project, then I can move forward with writing or editing articles. My interests lie in metaphysics, the Universe, energy healing, auras, crop circles, life after death, communicating with the other side, and a myriad of other subjects that link science with spirituality. I appreciate any information. Denisemedium Denisemedium (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Denisemedium, The pages most often recommended for someone wanting to create a new article are Your first article, and this summary of the essential requirements for an article to exist. For biographies, Wikipedia:Notability (people) is also vital. To briefly summarize all of these, an article must be about someone (or something) that is "notable. Wikipedia uses this term in a rather special way: Wikipedia considers that a subject is notable if published independent reliable sources have written about the subject in some detail. This means that a persons web page, social media posts, or published books don't count, but newspaper reviews of a person's books do. This also means that blogs, online fora, social media in general, and wikis and other sites relying on user-provided content don't count, but publications with editorial standards and fact checking, such as reputable newspapers and magazines, books by reputable publishers, scholarly publications, especially if peer-reviewed, generally will count. Also, coverage must normally be more than local, at least some of it should be in a publication with a regional, national, or international scope.

Then there are matters of layout, formatting and tone, but those are irrelevant until the sources have been found that establish notability. (Without that, no article can exist. ) The tone of a Wikipedia article should be somewhat formal. People are normally mentioned by their surnames, for example, not their first or personal names, and particularly not by nicknames. Wikipedia articles should be neutral. this means that they don't take sides, don't argue for or against anything or anyone. They factually report what reliable sources have already published. They don't report new facts never before published: that is considered original research and is not accepted. Wikipedia articles should not state opinions or make value judgements. They can quote (or summarize) other people who have done so, but must cite the exact source of each such quotation, and explicitly attribute it to the person who said or wrote it, in the article text.

Also, given your stated interests our guideline on "Fringe" topics should be read, as articles that fall within this area should comply.

I see you created User:Denisemedium/sandbox, which seems to be the start of a biography about a "Psychic Medium, American Author, Intuitive Consultant, Teacher". If this nins't intended as autobiography, it certainly looks like it at a quick glance.

Such an article, if it were to exist, should be titled simply "Denise Lescano", (and should have a parenthetic sub title ONLY if there is already an article about another Denise Lescano). It should start something like, "Denise Lescano (born 19xx) is a Psychic Medium, American Author, Intuitive Consultant, and Teacher." and immediately go one to summarize in a few sentences (at most 2-3 paragraphs) what makes Denise Lescano notable and important to others. Then the rest of the article can give more details of Lescano's life and achievvements. Note that we are particularly strict that any significant fact in a biography article about a living person must be cited to a reliable source. See WP:BLP. for more details.

There is much more, but I am out of time for the moment, and that is probably enough to start with. Does that seem helpful? DES ^(talk) 17:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for agreeing to be my mentor. When time permits, please visit my user talk page for details of the task ahead. Paul J Heritage (talk) 08:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, DESiegel. 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Paul J Heritage (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Two questions from Richard27182

Hi DESiegel.
      I have two important questions for you.

• First, if I'm in a DRN discussion and the moderator is very clearly demonstrating significantly biased behavior toward one side (I mean like he's actually making arguments in favor of one side and against the other), do I have the right to request that a different moderator be assigned; or am I just stuck with him?  and second....
• Once the DRN has been closed, can just anyone (including me) open an RFC; or does that have to go through certain channels (ie, would I have to request that a qualified editor do it)?
        Thank you. As always I really appreciate your advice.
  Richard27182 (talk) 06:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

First of all, Richard27182, I have to tell you that in the underlying dispute, I basically agree with Nyttend. To say, In a Wikipedia article that "X is a psychic" need not imply a statement that X's claimed powers are real, any more than to say "X is a priest" implies that there is an actual deity. In both cases there is what might be called a believer's and a skeptic's definition of the term. And i say this as a former paid member of CSICOP.

Secondly, I don't think the moderator handled this very well. But neither did the other editor who first responded to the moderator, in my view. However, the moderator has withdrawn and another one will join the discussion, so there is no reason to discuss the first moderator's conduct further, and i did not ping that editor.

Thirdly, you always have the right to request a new moderator at DRN, but if you do this too often, it may be that no new moderator will be willing to enter the case.

Fourthly, DRN is not binding. It operates by trying to reach a consensus among the parties. If that can't be done, it has failed. If no satisfactory outcome has been reached, the issue can be perused by other means, including an RFC.

Fifthly, there is no telling for sure how an RFC would come out on this issue, but I rather suspect that if one were held, it would not favor your position, but something close to that of Nyttend. Of course, i could be wrong about that prediction. I have been wrong before in predicting how consensus will develop on Wikipedia.

I urge you to try to understand the position of Nyttend and others who think the unqualified use of the term "psychic" is appropriate in such articles. I do commend you for having discussed at the outset, and not having tried to edit war. DES ^(talk) 09:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel.
      I see that, not only has The Editor of All Things Wikipedia withdrawn, but another editor, Jaaron95, has expressed a possible interest in moderating the case, "awaiting dispute summary from Nyttend." This leads to a couple questions I hope you'll be able to answer for me.

• What would be considered a reasonable amount of time for Nyttend to take to enter into the process (assuming that's going to happen)?
• If Nyttend refuses to become involved, can someone still agree to moderate and have the DRN process proceed; or do the rules require that both of the original editors involved in the dispute participate?

As always, I respect and appreciate your advice.
Richard27182 (talk) 09:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Richard27182, in fact The Editor of All Things Wikipedia has not only withdrawn, that editor has just been restricted from acting as a mediator or DRN or Helpdesk volunteer for 6 months among other restrictions, based in part on the DRN case you are involved with, adn on many other incidents as well. As to your questions:

• there is no fixed time, but it would not be unusual for a DRN discussion to wait for a participant for several days to a week.
• As DRN is intended to help the parties come to an agreement, it is pointless if there is only one party participating. If there are several editors involved, and in particular if there are active editors representing each of the expressed views on the matter DRN can proceed.
• In any case, DRN outcomes, while respected, are not binding. If an editor disagrees with the conclusion or if no conclusion can be reached, other DR steps can be tried, in particular an RFC on a content matter, such as this is. (Conduct issues take other routes, but I am gflad this is not one.)

I hope that helps DES ^(talk) 13:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel.
      I see that since our last exchange, things have gone from bad to worse to the worst possible case concerning The Editor of All Things Wikipedia. I'm glad that it was primarily over something other than the DRN issue in which I was involved. Anyway that's not the reason I'm writing.
      If I'm understanding you correctly, the DRN discussion can proceed even without Nyttend, as long as other editors are involved and at least some of them support Nyttend's position. This raises a big concern for me. Right now other editors cannot participate in the moderated discussion because the DRN discussion has not yet been opened. JAaron95 has more or less indicated that he would (presumably) open the case when Nyttend posts his dispute summary. This seems to be a variation of a "catch-22." It appears to put Nyttend in a position of being able to singlehandedly prevent the DRN case from ever being opened simply by sitting back and doing nothing. Am I interpreting this correctly? Or will JAaron95 (or someone else) eventually open the case even if Nyttend never posts his dispute summary? If the answer is "no," it certainly seems unfair.
      As always, thank you for your time and your assistance.
Richard27182 (talk) 07:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: Hi DESiegel. What I was afraid would happen is apparently going to happen. JAaron95 (the potential new moderator for the Miss Cleo DRN case) has indicated that if Nyttend does not make his opening statement within 48 hours, then he (JAaron95) will close the case. Can he close the case without ever having officially opened it? And if he does so, can I list the case for RFC myself, or would that need to be done by a different editor? Thank you for your help and advice.
Richard27182 (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Richard27182 remember, DRN is not in any case binding on anyone. Its sole purpose is to help people reach agreement. if you think that it would be helpful for you to work on reaching agreement with those still commenting on the talk page, you can do so directly on the talk page, or you can ask JAaron95 if he would keep the DRN thread open for that purpose, assuming that the other editors are willing. Remember that no one can be required to participate in a DRN discussion. You can always file an RFC, although it looks better not to do so while there is a related DRN case open. But DRN is not a prerequisite to an RFC. Be warned, on the merits, I think such an RFC will not get the consensus you are looking for, but it is always possible. You might want to try to consider if the editors who have taken a different view from yours might have a point. DES ^(talk) 23:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel.
      Thank you for the reply and suggestions.
      The Miss Cleo talk page has turned into more of a discussion on the merits of DRN itself; there don't seem to be any editors on there who want to talk about the original issue.
      I have posted something under the Miss Cleo DRN asking JAaron95 if he would consider waiting longer than 48 hours, and he agreed to keep it open for another 48 hours.
      I would never file an RFC before the DRN (if there is one, as is the case here) has been closed. Anyway I want to ask you if it's OK for me to file the RFC myself. (I am one of the two original disputing editors.) And also, is following the directions on Wikipedia:Requests for comment sufficient, or is there more involved in filing an RFC?
      As always I very much appreciate your advice and assistance.
Richard27182 (talk) 09:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you help? Article declined for 2nd time, with new reasons

Hello DESiegel,

My article Sacred Attention Therapy (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Sacred_Attention_Therapy&redirect=no) has been declined for the 2nd time with the following reason(s):

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the general guideline on notabilityand the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

You had very kindly offered me some good feedback previously...and I was hoping you could help me again. Please note that the article had been submitted before I was able to address your previous comments.

Questions for you:

1. How do I know which references are in need of correction/improvement? 2. Is the latest feedback because of the issue(s) you brought up in your recent, helpful comments? That is, if I addressed the comments you previously made, would the latest reviewer's comments NOT been made?

Any assistance you can provide will be appreciated.

Sincerely,

RobMeagherSAT (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

RobMeagherSAT, taking your second question first, i dfon't know how the reveiwer woudl have reacted had my suggestions been followed. No one but the reviewer will know, so I suggest that you might ask Flat Out. However i am confident that none of my suggestions would have hurt the draft's chances of success. Soem reviewers stop when they find a good reason to reject, and don't list other reasons that might be present. others try to give a fairly full critique. There are many drafts waiting, so reviewers (who are, after all, unpaid volunteers) may not want to spend lots of time on a draft that is clearly not ready for acceptance. However, the reasons seem rather separate, so fixing both sets of issues would probably be best.

As to the quality of the currently cited sources: I of course can't review the offline sources. taking nthe ones I can access:

• Spalding, Matthew L (2008). Trusting the Process doesn't seem to mention Sacred Attention or Richard Harvey at all, and no page numbers are specified. What was this source cited for?
• McDonald, Cynthia, et.al. The perceived effects of psycho-spiritual integrative therapy seems to be about "Psycho-Spiritual Integrative Therapy" It also does not mention Sacred Attention or Richard Harvey at all. Again no page number is given. What was this cited for?
• Cherry, Kendra. Trait Theory of Personality also does not mention Sacred Attention or Richard Harvey at all, Moreover about.com is generally considered a marginal source at best.
• Character and the Social Process also fails to mention Sacred Attention or Richard Harvey at all. Are you seeing a pattern here? Since this was written in 1942 it hardly could have, I suppose. (Also the cite omitted to state the author, but that would be easily corrected if the cite was relevant.)

None of the online sources mention the article subject at all. This is a major problem. Now let's look at the offline sources.

• Rowan, John. (1993). appears to be a book, world cat says it has 317 pages. But no page numbers are cited. it is not reasonable to excpect a reader to read an entrie book to look for the specific supporting information you are citing for.
• Barrick, Marilyn C., Ph.D. (2000). Sacred Psychology of Change has 224 pages according to worldcat, and similarly has no page references.
• Watts, Alan. (1961). Psychotherapy East and West has just under 200 pages, with no page cite.

That leaves only a few cited sources

• Your Essential Self and The Flight of Consciousness are both by Richard Harvey They are therefore not independent, and so don't count towards notability at all. But if they did, both cite a range of over 150 pages, again unreasonable and therefore useless.
• Finally The Red Thread of Passion lists two pages in its citation. But after so many failed cites, it is hard to trust this offline source fully. And at best it is a single source, while notability generally requires multiple independent sources. Moreover, in the article the description of this work suggests that it is being cited for descriptions of different therapy techniques that are more or less related to Sacred Attention, but are not the same thing. if that is so, it would not contribute to notability anyway.

What is needed is several clearly reliable independent sources that directly discuss Sacred Attention Therapy itself in some detail, and not just related or predecessor methods. If these could be online it would be better. Then, the content must be strictly limited to what can be directly supported by the cited sources. Drawing conclusions by combining info from two or more sources or by extrapolating form what a source actually says is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and is not acceptable.

I hope that is helpful. Please feel dfree to ask again with any questions. I will copy some of this to the draft's talk page for your use and the attention of future reviewers. DES ^(talk) 20:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you DESiegel for this wonderful feedback. I will work with your suggestions to see if I can get the article to a more acceptable level. Thanks again for all your efforts...much appreciated. RobMeagherSAT (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging me in DES , RobMeagherSAT I reviewed a significant number of drafts to help clear a backlog and didn't leave any additional comments, but I saw the sections Lineage and Core elements make up a significant percentage of the article content and were not well referenced. There are other issues about the subject and references to support the notability of the subject (not Richard Harvey). I am happy to discuss on my talk page. Flat Out (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

DES and Flat Out, thank you for all your help. After your last rounds of feedback, I took a step back from article authoring. The discovery of a Wikipedia article with no 'verifiable' references made me come back to authoring my article.

I have updated my article (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Sacred_Attention_Therapy&redirect=no) to reflect:

1. Initial feedback to provide context. DES, I also used your suggestion to model the opening piece around the Cognitive Behavioral Therapy article. This was helpful. Respecting the fact that SAT differs fundamentally from CBT and all other known therapeutic approaches (e.g., traditional counseling and psychotherapy), I did what I could. 2. All discussion involving any form of analysis about the uniqueness of SAT I removed. 3. I removed all references previously used as they seemed to be at the heart of some concern by reviewers to date. Again, I found a published article in Wikipedia that had no verifiable references and felt this was the best approach to take at this time, given we are not aware of an independent source that has written about Richard Harvey or SAT.

Before I submit the latest version of the article for review, I would be interested to hear what either/both of you have to think/say about the latest version.

In appreciation for your time and efforts.

RobMeagherSAT (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

RobMeagherSAT some of the sources in the draft were perhaps inappropriate, and several of them were used without making it clear how their content relates, if it does, to Sacred Attention Therapy. What is needed is more and better sources, not fewer. While it is no doubt true that Wikipedia has a number of articles with no cited sources, most of these will date from an earlier era when Wikipedia standards were lower. Others will have more or less snuck through the cracks. But that does not mean that this is acceptable. See the essay Other Stuff Exists for why this is a very pooor argument to make on Wkipedia. If "we are not aware of an independent source that has written about Richard Harvey or SAT." and if in fact no such source exists, then these topics are not notable and there will not be a Wikipedia article about them. I can promise you that no AfC reviewer would pass a draft with no cited sources to the main article space. DES ^(talk) 16:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you DES for your review of the latest draft and for your comments. It does appear unfortunate that consistent standards have not been applied to all articles in Wikipedia. Again, thank you for all your efforts...much appreciated. Sincerely, RobMeagherSAT (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is unfortunate, RobMeagherSAT. It is also pretty much inevitable. With over 5 million articles currently on the English-language edition of Wikipedia, checking every article agaisnt every change in policy and practice is not a feasible project. You will find, however, that the overwhelming majority of articles currently live do use independent sources, and that most of those that do not are tagged to indicate that such sources are needed. If you care to mention the article you noticed, i might be able to add sources to it or mark it as needing sources. By the way, I got the link to the essay above wrong, it is fixed now. DES ^(talk) 18:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Helpdesk Answer

I noticed you commented on an email notifications question on the help desk, Im pretty sure that my answer is he better way for the user to do it but I am pretty new here and do not want to cause conflict by deleting your comment. Would you mind taking a look? Fyi im not trying to be confrontational or anything because I have come off that way in the past. :) Thanks, The Editor of All Things Wikipedia ^《Talk》 22:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you are confrontational, The Editor of All Things Wikipedia, but in this case i think you are mistaken. For odd historical reasons, most of the email-related preferences are on the notification tab, but not the one for email about watch list changes, which is not technically a "notification" because it uses a different mechanism. Check for yourself, I just did. DES ^(talk) 23:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

If you think another user's comment at the helpdesk or Teahouse is incorrect, offer your correction but please don't delete the other comment. That can be confusing as well as impolite. The other user may strike his or her comment after reading yours if s/he agrees that it was mistaken. DES ^(talk) 23:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I wasnt going to delete your comment nor was I urging you too so dont worry about that :). I just thought that the user wasnt asking for watchlist notificatons and just if someone reverts any edits. It doesnt matter in the great scheme of things, he can decide what serves him best. I thing the main issue in this case is interpreting what exactly the user is asking for. Thanks The Editor of All Things Wikipedia ^《Talk》 23:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, The Editor of All Things Wikipedia. Users at the helpdesk often don't say very clearly just what they do want. Now the user can learn about both options. i only mentioned deleting comments because you mentioned that above. "I ... do not want to cause conflict by deleting your comment." DES ^(talk) 23:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I wrote that meaning something else. Thanks for putting another comment that shows a little more about both :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Editor of All Things Wikipedia (talk • contribs) 23:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks DES

I was just going to ask you about being a mentor for me because I realize how out of my depth I am here. If you can help by recommended readings and assignments, that would be great, or anything else you could see I might find helpful. What is going on over at the administrator board? It looks like Editor at all things wikipedia is actually another user... was he banned and has joined again as a sock puppet? Anyway it's actually quite a fun community but I worry once I'm off vacation and back to work I won't have as much time to invest in this (but I hope I will).Cityside189 (talk) 04:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help or mentor you, Cityside189.

Wikipedia can be addictive. Beware of editcountitis.

TEoATW is either a very over-enthusiastic new editor trying to reach beyond his grasp, or a very subtle socking disruptor. I think the former. It can be hard to tell in such cases. But in either case that editor seems about to fall under some significant restrictions. I just notified you since your name was mentioned in the thread. I wouldn't worry to much, but you are entitled to notice when your user name is mentioned on ANI.

Have a look at my advice to User:Paul J Heritage on his talk page User talk:Paul J Heritage.

As to suggested readings, it dependfs what you want to do here. If you are interested in creating new articles, I'd suggest Your first article and the golden rule. For that or for adding to existing articles, I would suggest reading WP:V, referencing for beginners, and citing sources and notability. It might also be a good idea to look at articles for deletion and follow a few deletion debates. To have a look at new content and how it gets reviewed, try WP:DYK. What questions do you have and what areas are you interested in? DES ^(talk) 05:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm kind of freaked out at this Editor user. He just accused me of sock puppetry on my home page. Can he do that? Can you look at this for me? I've read his posts on the administrator discussion board, his work on the previous dispute page, and this seems really problematic. Can I start a complaint about his opening an investigation about me? I'll have to leave this for a while to cool off... !! Thanks for your help and I'll hope to write more tomorrow. Cityside189 (talk) 05:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Cityside189 I wrote a comment on your talk page after you said that you were frightened of me and that I was harrassing you on Beyond My Kens talk page. On the notice it says the page of the investigation. On this page, you can make objections. I did not accuse you of sock puppetry, Beyond My Ken did. He accused me and you of being sockpuppets (under control of one person). In order to prove thag we are not sockpuppets which we arent, I opened an investigation so that way they can look at both our IP addresses (Basically unique codes that say what wifi youre using) and see that they do not match, (two sockpuppet accounts would) proving that we are both innocent of these uncalled accusations made by Beyond My Ken. There is no need to be scared or worried about it, it is simply a formality to clear us both of these accusations. I did not intend on scaring or frightening you and posted a comment in regards to that on your talk page. Please also let me know of conversations like these that would otherwise be behind my back not allowing me to explain the misunderstanding. And keep in mind, I know you arent a sockpuppet but the others dont necessarily so the investigation needs to be completed to prove that we arent. The investigation might not even be approved so dont worry too much.:) Thanks and welcome to wikipedia! The Editor of All Things Wikipedia ^《Talk》 07:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Cityside189, don't worry. The matter of the "sockpuppet investigation" started by TEoATW has been mentioned in the WP:ANI thread, and will be dealt with properly in due course. Already one editor has moved to close the discussion and act on the proposed restrictions. I have commented on the SPI page and several times in the ANI thread. Anyone can file an SPI, but it has no effect unless persuasive evidence is brought forward. Your standing as an editor will not be harmed. DES ^(talk) 12:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again. It's easy to get caught up in this online galaxy. My main reason for joining was for the enjoyment of dialog and contributing to the truth. When I did research years ago, I liked the academic world. I'm in the "real world" now where "what's best" is completely relative. And in my regular life I've come to grips with the discomfort of ethical dilemmas. In research and statistics, it's easier to know what's true and good and I like to be on the side of good. If Wikipedia existed back when the prevailing "truth" was that the world was flat, it may not have taken us as long to come to grips with the fact of it being round.

So I have looked at some topics I thought were boring so that I wouldn't get caught up in emotional topics. So I went to "Doorknobs", and actually had some fun editing that article. I also helped an author's article on her books. I plan to do some research and talk page suggestions for edits on Mental Health counseling as well. I'm learning that talk pages are a better place to propose edits and then later on to edit or even let others do the editing.

I don't think I have the energy for starting new articles yet. There's so much more to do with the existing articles.

I would like to make sure my use of the Wiki language is good. Is it Basic? Paschal? Unix? I notice that when you write to others, certain links appear in your text that allow the reader to bounce over and read more what you are saying. Basically you're putting hyperlinks into the text. Is the Wiki language basically like Microsoft word where you can insert hyperlinks? I'd like to be able to include links in what I write so people can follow my thoughts without having to take cumbersome steps. For example, how would I link you in this sentence to the doorknobs article so you can see what I wrote there?Cityside189 (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello again Cityside189. There is indeed much to do with existing articles, but creating new articles validly can be enjoyable too, and has the advantage that others are usually not changing what you do as often. But there is much room for each, and for other choices also.

There are lists and categories to help one find articles in need of particular kinds of effort. Many of these are listed at Wikipedia:Maintenance, its not a bad place to start looking for things to do, but just browsing at random can be a good way also, as can following whatever interests you.

Wikicode is a markup language, described at Help:Wiki markup and pages linked from there, and more generally at Wiki markup. The media-wiki software renders wiki-markup into HTML for display. Since it was intended for this purpose, there are some similarities between wiki-code and HTML. The main forms of markup I think you are seeing in my prose are wiki-links and piped links. Both are forms of inline hyperlinks. To illustrate this, [[Example]] renders as Example, and links to an article named Example. [[Example|instance]] renders as instance, but still links to the article "Example". Similarly [[Doorknobs]] renders as Doorknobs. One can also link to pages in other namespaces. [[Wikipedia:Example]] renders as Wikipedia:Example and [[User:DESiegel]] renders as User:DESiegel. Such links can also be piped: [[Wikipedia:Example|a page to use in demos]] renders as a page to use in demos. Wiki-links are normally preferred to URLs when linking or referring to pages on Wikipedia.

You will also encounter the use of templartes. These are basically macros or subroutine calls. They render as predefiend text, possibly including one or more parameters. They can include conditional logic, which makes them potentially quite powerful, but since this was a later addition the syntax is rather clumsy and potentially confusing. However that really matters only when writing or modifying a template, using a well-designed and documented template should be easy. Infoboxes such as {{infobox person}} are implemented as templates, for example as are {{cite web}}, {{cite book}} and the other citation templates. Templates are invoked with paired braces {{template name here}} or with parameters separated by pipe symbols as {{template name here |parm1 |parm2 |parm3}} or named parameters such as {{template name here|type=alpha |class=beta |month=July}}.

Feel free to ask specific questions about wiki-markup, or anything else. DES ^(talk) 15:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again. I will have to study this so I can get a sense of how best to communicate. It's a bit more complicated than I thought. This is great and thank you for your continued invitations to ask more questions.

As I move forward I'm trying to un-do some damage that I think I did. One specific example is a creepy and weird note I wrote on Roscele's username talk page. I've tried to contact her in a post on LGBT Parenting talk page. Here's what I wrote to her there, just minutes ago. "Also... I'm embarrassed about what I wrote on your username -specific talk page, after reading it, it seems creepy and weird to me, and I'm the one that wrote it. I'd like to delete it, but at this point I don't want to do even that without achieving consensus. I've asked my mentor DES about what I should do now and in the future when I find myself blundering into stupid mistakes." So DES, do you have any advice on how to proceed? (Maybe you could look at her talk page and get back to me about what, if anything, to do.) Cityside189 (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Cityside189, When you feel that a comment you made on a talk page (not an article page) was inappropriate or incorrect, the preferred method is to strike the comment by putting it inside paired <s> and </s> tags, which you will recognize as straight HTML. Append a signed comment indicating why you are making this change. It is usually considered impolite to strike another person's comments, except possibly in the case of a severe personal attack. If the page or thread has already been archived, don't edit it for this purpose.

Above I gave you a wide variety of possible markup, but much of it is not often used in ordinary communication. links, indents, bulleted and numbered lists are the most frequent forms of markup on talk pages. DES ^(talk) 15:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Disputed blocks

Hi. I just saw your post on ANI. Although I read the evidence for the Cityside189 as being a bit stronger than you do, and have great respect for User:Floquenbeam's approach to these sorts of matters (which probably include more unblocks than blocks), I agree with you that the evidence is not conclusive. Many times I've played the same role you did today of questioning such a block, and sometimes I've been right and sometimes I've been wrong; and sometimes I've been able to create or move a consensus and sometimes I haven't.

I urge that you not allow one instance in which other admins disagreed with you about a block, to sour you on the whole project. There are always going to be good-faith disagreements about administrator actions, and if everyone who didn't prevail in the collegial discussion was lost to the project as a result, we'd be virtually adminless by now. I can say from personal experience of seven years on the ArbCom that I was outvoted on decision-proposals and motions literally dozens of times, including more instances than I care to remember in which I was the sole dissenter. In retrospect, sometimes the majority was right, and sometimes I was right, and sometimes what we were arguing about didn't matter much anyway. But the fact that I was outvoted probably more often than anyone else didn't (if I say so myself) make me a bad arbitrator, and it didn't mean I wasn't effective at expressing my views, either; it just means that there are always decisions to be made on which not everyone will agree. And similarly as to administrators: If everyone always agreed, we wouldn't need a noticeboard whose purposes include discussing administrators' disagreements.

I understand that you're disaffected at the moment, but I hope this helps. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Newyorkbrad. I suppose you don't think taking this to arbcom would have any productive result.Earlier today i fully intended to do that, but this is the kind of judgemetn call they don't oftgen take up, am i correct?

I could understand if people had initially wanted to block TEoATW for disruption or nothere. But a decision was made and then totally overturned by one admin on basically no evidence but a "gut feeling". I understand that sometimes patterns of word usage, article selection and other behavior point to a sock when technical evidence can't be conclusive. But generally they point to a particular sockmaster. Ive been seeing more of "he got good too fast, must be a sock" and i think that fundamentally poor judgement, and likely to wind up shooting ourselves in the foot. last month I went to an edit-a-thon, and helped show several new users how to create accounts and edit articles -- at least one is now up for DYK. I told them that their fears of being abused by bullying long-term editors were groundless. i couldn't honestly do that again. DES ^(talk) 23:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I encountered TEOATW before the drama, on Huggle, and tried to give them what guidance I could. I'm convinced their only problem was an excess of enthusiasm and a need for patient guidance to assimilate to WP culture.

I'm actually afraid this fiasco could have a really nasty result: although they've demonstrated all along that, although ambitious, they were happy to accept and apply even rudely-worded criticism, I'm worried this hurricane of ABF and insults could turn their energy and dedication towards becoming a long-term abuser. I don't think this is very likely, since all along their actions and words were demonstrating respect and admiration for the project, but if anything were to send them to the dark side this would be it. The whole thing was, in my opinion, not just a discredit but a threat to Wikipedia.

Then again, it's not my place to raise these issues, and as NYB says it's probably not worth it to pursue the issue further. If you can think of something to leave on their talk page to apologize on behalf of the community, that might be a good idea. Feel free to revdel this per beans, I guess. FourViolas (talk) 03:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It is every editor's place to raise such issues. Whether anyone would listen in this case is another question, FourViolas. And i don't delete, much less revdel, content on my talk page without a much better reason than WP:BEANS, which along with WP:DENY I think is much over used. Thanks for your comments. DES ^(talk) 03:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi from another user; i have watched the TEOATW thing develop for several days, since he first posted on WP:BN, i think, and have been very disappointed by the way a second editor got caught up. While i have great respect for the blocking editor, i believe he was mistaken this time, and would have said so had i seen the ANI thread you opened prior to its closure. At any rate, i believe your post and your AGF with Cityside189 reflect very well upon you ~ while i've seen you around the project previously, of course, i don't think i have interacted with you at all before, and i rather regret that now.... Unfortunately, it probably isn't worth pursuing it further, as too many people have opined too strongly that Cityside189 was not an innocent bystander; if you decide to, at some point, i'd appreciate a ping, just so i may offer my two cents worth. Again, thank you for your post ~ and for all you do around here. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 10:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

DESiegel, sorry I didn't respond earlier; I've been returning from my trip today.

Regarding the possibility of taking this to ArbCom, I don't think it would be either appropriate or successful to bring this to the Committee as an "administrator conduct" case. The consensus on ANI seems to be that Floquenbeam acted reasonably, and in any event, admin-conduct cases are usually based on a pattern of bad acts by the administrator; here, I don't think anyone could make such a case against Floquenbeam, and indeed based on what I've seen, I would describe his judgment as being, not perfect, but well above average, even if you disagree with him the instance.

Separately, though, the blocked user could file an appeal to ArbCom if his or her other avenues of appeal were exhausted—more specifically, to the ban appeals subcommittee. Other avenues of appeal, if available, should be exhausted first, however.

In terms of what I would tell a hypothetical new user, I would say that new editors are generally treated fairly, and that fears of "being abused by bullying long-term editors" are misplaced. I don't think you need to change your advice in that regard at all. The caveat might be that new editors probably should not, near the outset of their editing careers, take on the responsibility of rehabilitating other new editors whose behavior is somewhere between problematic and unacceptable.

If either or both of these editors was a good-faith newcomer and trolling were ruled out as the cause of the behavior, the next-most-likely cause would be that they are, or were, younger editors who got a bit carried away with trying to get into all of the administrative and user-control aspects of the project much too soon. One of the reasons I wrote the first draft of what became Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors a few years back was to counsel such editors against exactly this mistake... Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to make sure you saw this

User talk:Cityside189#Unblocking. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Newyorkbrad. I had already seen it, and commented briefly in the thread 2 sections above it, where I had an ongoing dialog with Cityside189. I will not comment on the unblock reasoning beyond that, but I am pleased with the outcome, and hope the ultimate results are positive for all. DES ^(talk) 18:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Ciyside189

Hi again Des. I wanted to write because of how relieved I am to be getting a fresh start. I think your encouragement really helped me hang in there. If I hadn't stumbled into the Tea House we may have never met, and I'm really glad we did. I'm also glad that you had the time and energy to talk with me, something that must not come easily to tenured editors with years of experience seeing the worst of new users. I also saw that Newyorkbrad had posted some information on your page and I was encouraged by that information also. I was going to write to him and thank him, and see if he had any time, energy or patience for some communication with me. However I thought it best to ask if you thought that was appropriate and maybe for an introduction.

I want to help you out as a return for all the encouragement and mentoring you've given me. Can I get started doing something for you, typing, editing, clerical functions that would help you out, or would you rather I get more experience in some areas? I'll leave that up to you. I did start to make some suggestions on a star trek article and will move into a mental health-related thing next. But if there's some task you need done that is tedious, please send it my way and I will do my best.

Thanks again, Cityside189 (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Des, I think there is a problem. I've been editing and using the Tea House. I saw a new user "glacial frost", post a question and wanted to reach out a hand of hello. Now get this... hold on to your hat, I think it's TOaTW as another sock puppet. This is squarely falls in the "none my my business" category except that my comment is still on his talk page. He is already doing the same thing as before, same editing tone and other stuff. Deleting things off his project page that was set up in the Co-op program, deleting my original message to him off the Tea House, and just recently starting to boss some people around in a specific, telltale way. Because I reached out a hand, I foresee other admins thinking this is too much of a coincidence, that here I am intersecting with him again (if it is him). I looked up his contributions (I learned how to do that) and here is his most recent edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:CSI:_Crime_Scene_Investigation&diff=prev&oldid=675862397. I wanted to get ahead of this, in case it is, or might become something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityside189 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Cityside189. You have now brought this to the attention of an admin. That was good. Now I strongly urge you not to interact with this user, whether s/he is a sock of TEoATW or of anyone else or not, unless and until there is a sock investigation, and the new editor is fully cleared of scocking. Even then, it might be best to steer clear of any such editor. DES ^(talk) 15:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi again DES, thought I'd say hello and ask you to look over my recent talk page with user flyer22, I don't know what I did to cause attention, perhaps suggestions for research citations for sex offender. do you think my reply is appropriate? Thanks.... --Cityside189 (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I just dropped in to say hello and let you know I'd commented on your SPI relating to TEoATW, and found this discussion so I thought I'd weigh in. I agree completely with Cityside189. Glacialfrost is so clearly TEoATW; I've added a fair bit of behavioral and geographical evidence to get the ducks quacking pretty loudly. I'd actually gone to SPI to file myself, having been one of the targets of his CSI post linked above, and found your filing, so I just added to it. Do you think it might be well to formally request a Checkuser? Otherwise, this may sit for weeks, and the little twerp will continue running around, playing pseudo-problem solver. He's really offensive. --Drmargi (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's see if we can cut through some of the "paperwork": [checkuser requested removed as completed--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)] Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Great! I just left a message for Floquenbeam, who was the previous blocking editor. Between this guy and the one yesterday, I've had enough harassment for one week, thankyouverymuch. --Drmargi (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I removed the checkuser flag above as the SPI is complete and available at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Editor of All Things Wikipedia.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

A point and a question from Richard27182

Hi DESiegel.
      I respect your opinion in the Miss Cleo RFC even though I disagree with it. But the main point I want to make is that I do not in any way take it personally; I continue to think of you as a friendly source of helpful information, advice, and encouragement.
      One thing about your statement puzzles me though. You wrote  "B would be NPOV as attacking her self-description........".  I thought that "NPOV" stood for "neutral point of view." Did you mean to write  "B would not be NPOV as attacking her self-description........"?
Richard27182 (talk) 08:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Richard27182, You are correct, that was an editing error on my part thanks for pointing it out. My opinion is entirely on the content issue, and a bit on the procedural one, not on you as an editor. I understand that you want in good faith to improve the article and other similar articles. DES ^(talk) 12:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel.
      Purely by coincidence, your editing error and correction seemed to anticipate a question I was planning to ask you: how does one correct errors made in an RFC posting (or any talk page posting for that matter). I see from your example that the solution is to make the correction, add a brief note of explanation, and add a new signature. But there is still one special case I need to ask you about:

• Suppose the error is miniscule? (I mean like a forgotten period at the end of the last sentence.) Would it be permissible to just make the correction without any other added material or the new signature. And even if it is permitted, would the system itself automatically add a signature (or IP address) anyway (possibly in an inappropriate place) if the editor does not sign it manually?

As always, thank you for your help.
Richard27182 (talk) 05:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Richard27182, If people have replied, then one should always leave a change note, or post a new comment with the correction ("I meant to say above that..." or the like). A trivial correction, such as a typo or a missing period, if it does not in any way change the meaning, may be corrected silently, particularly if it hasn't been there long. But talk pages don't need to be brought up to publication quality, unlike articles, so trivial changes can be simply ignored. Also, many people consider it rude to correct typos in other people's comments. In general don't correct these unless broken markup is affecting the rest of the page, such as an unclosed tag or template call.

As to adding signatures, the system never does this. There is a running script: User:SineBot which tries to find unsigned talk page comments and sign them. But it is designed to be conservative. If it can't be reasonably sure that a change is a new unsigned comment, it does nothing. It won't sign changes to existing posts. Of course, the change is noted in the page history with timestamp and the user name of the editing user. All changes are. Changes to the posted description of an RfC, should be made particularly carefully. If anyone has posted to the RfC, then any change that might be taken as changing the meaning should be made in a later comment, not by changing the RFC itself. This applies only to the advertised header, not to later posted comments, even from the original poster of the RfC. DES ^(talk) 10:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel.  A belated thank you.
Richard27182 (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You are quite welcome, Richard27182. DES ^(talk) 22:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I know this is frowned on, but........

Hi DESiegel.
      I hope I'm not becoming too much of a pest with all my questions; but I have another one and I think this is the kind of question I really have to ask an editor. In a recent message you wrote "There is a running script: User:SineBot which tries to find unsigned talk [emphasis added] page comments and sign them." If I wanted to do a little experimenting with that, would it be OK to use my User talk:...../sandbox page for that? Some time ago I was told that talkspace is for discussion only, and that editing practice or experimenting in user talkspace (even my own sandbox talk page) is heavily frowned on. But if I want to check out something that works differently in talkspace than it does in other spaces, how else can I do it?
      As always, your help and advice are tremendously appreciated.
Richard27182 (talk) 08:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Richard27182, no problem. What you were advised against before was using your sendbox talk page as a 2nd sendbox, in short using a talk page as a non-talk page. If you want to experiment with stuff for a talk page on a talk page, you may surely use your sandbox's talk page for that. However, before yoiu nspend much time on this, I suggest that you read User:SineBot and the FAQ on User talk:SineBot where the ways in which SineBot acts and does not act are spelled out in some detail. If after that you still want to experiment, feel free. I'm not sure what you wan to learn from such experiments, but I can't see any harm in them. DES ^(talk) 12:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC) @Richard27182: DES ^(talk) 12:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel.
      Thanks for the clarification. I'll read the information you recommended, and if I still have some uncertainties, I'll feel free to check them out by editing my sandbox talk page. (If I do that, I think I'll include a brief message with the test data indicating what I'm doing.)
      As always, thank you.
Richard27182 (talk) 07:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oliver M. Gruber-Lavin Ochoa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MBCS. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Takeshi Murata

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you. You have been so helpful to this newbie. I really do appreciate it. The other fellow who is working on the Mayapple Press article seems to just want to flag everything as not notable and request deletion. He has already done that for the Backwaters Press https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backwaters_Press article and the Matt Mason (Poet) one, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Mason_%28poet%29 Am I crazy but if an article has been up for five or more years, shouldn't it be reasonable to assume that the notability issue was resolved? None of these three articles were flagged as a notability issue before I started to work on them and now they are. It makes me worry that we are just "going around in circles." Comments?

Edward Dixon (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Edward

Edward Dixon, notability issues do often come to light after an article has been around for years. Sometimes it was created when standards were lower. Sometimes it was a low-traffic article and no one chose to raise the issue. Sometimes both. No article has an automatic pass from deletion proposals (although high-schools and radio stations come close). DES ^(talk) 23:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again, DESiegel. Okay, I see, but I do think the concern is misplaced here. Could you go over to the deletion proposal page for Backwaters Press https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backwaters_Press and give me your opinion on whether my argument made any sense to keep it and what is your opinion on whether it should be kept. I revised the entry rather significantly tonight. I know making the case for notability is mostly a different matter than writing a well-sourced article but I was hoping that some of my revisions might also help for the notability here to be more clear. By the way, is this a matter of a vote? If so, how do I get my vote tallied. Is it done so just by my comment or do I need to do something more.

As always, thanks. By the way, I think I would be lost and doomed here without you. I'm beginning to ask myself why am I even trying this, since I really have no personal interest in any of these articles (as of course I shouldn't). My desire just to improve the quality of articles that I think are worthwhile is beginning to seem not worth the hassle. It is beginning to look like I am doing more harm than good for what seems to me worthwhile topics. If I stick around, I think I'll need a mentor. I see you are agreeing to do that for some folks. Hint, hint.  :-(

Edward Dixon (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)Edward Dixon

Hello again, Edward Dixon. It is not strictly a matter of votes, although those have their impact. (It used to be more explicitly a matter of vote count.) The closer will asses the strenght of the arguments and the consensus readh, if any. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Contributing to AfD discussions and Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#General advice. In this case, the main issue raise is notability so that is what must be established. W8ikipedia uses that term is a special sense (I wish we used a different term, but that is long past changing.) On Wikipedia a topic is notable if reliable secondary sources have written about it in enough detail to base an article on, and not otherwise even if it is highly significant. In this case the best response is to find additional secondary sources and add them to the article or at least list them in the deletion d8iscussion. If they are added to the article, this should be mentioned in the discussion.

I will be happy to mentor you as best as I can, within the constraints of time. Feel free to ask any questions or raise any issues either here on my talk page, or elsewhere by pinging me. I will be in touch. DES ^(talk) 11:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse trolling?

Hi. Do you reckon we're being trolled? I was already confused why there were so many questions about revision deletion, and now we have a user with a very similar username asking a similar question. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks like we have an answer (yes). Cordless Larry (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

That s/he used two accounts does not prove trolling, Cordless Larry, and unless there were abusive uses (which i don't see on the teahouse, but I haven't checked the contribs of either account beyond that) it isn't strictly sockpuppetry either. Still it should stop, and I told the user so. DES ^(talk) 23:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but it's a bit odd to use a second account to ask essentially the same question isn't it? The only edits either user have made have been to the Teahouse. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is, Cordless Larry, but I've seem much odder behavior than that from newbies, some of whom become good editors (although many did not). I see no reason to WP:BITE, beyond making the rules clear, which i think i have done. DES ^(talk) 23:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I admire your ability to assume good faith, and hope that the editor does indeed go on to make some useful contributions. Thanks for explaining the rules to them. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Here I don't really assume good faith, I merely note the absence of demonstrated bad faith, Cordless Larry. I actually suspect that this editor is merely playing around with no serious intentions at all. But other readers of the TH might gain something from the answers, and a display of heavy-handed repose might drive off some reader who we would want to retain. Patience is a virtue, and I see no gain from a leap to a (technically invalid anyway) block or warning. DES ^(talk) 23:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I wasn't calling for a block in any case, but rather checking that you were aware of the possibility that the user was playing around, in case you wasted time on a very extensive reply. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

It looks like our friend is back! Cordless Larry (talk) 07:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

DRV

Opened as suggested, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 August 21#Template:AZBilliards.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

License for article Bartolomej Stankovic

Can you explain in detail how to give consent for the content of the website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faris Garib (talk • contribs) 21:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll try, Faris Garib. Full details are given at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.

• Text imported from other sites into Wikipedia articles must be licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) or a compatible license. This means that:
  1. The text may be freely redistributed and used, by anyone in the world, for any purpose at all.
  2. It may be freely modified, and modified versions may also be freely redistributed and used.
  3. In all cases, CC-BY-SA requires proper attribution of the author(s). This means credit must be given.
  4. CC-BY-SA allows commercial re-uses provided such re-use is also under CC-BY-SA.
• A suggested letter of consent can be found at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Have the copyright owner fill this out and email it back to you. Forward a copy to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org". Include the source Internet URL (or other source location) and the Wikipedia link for the article in which the text will be used.
• add {{OTRS pending}} to the article talk page, after the email granting permission has been sent to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org"
• When you add the text, include an edit summary noting the OTRS pending on the talk page, and that this is by permission.
• Even so, in most cases, content from an outside web page will prove unsuitable. If it has a promotional tone, or is otherwise not neutral, or makes claims that cannot be cited to a reliable source, it will not be suitable. Oftne it is much better and simpler to rewrite the content in one's own words, basing as much as possible on published independent, secondary reliable sources, and citing those sources. Even if the content is added to the article, it may be, and probably will be, freely edited by anyone here. Do not assume that it will stay in the form it has on the outside website, or anything close to that. Parts of it might stay, or they might not.

I hope all this is helpful. DES ^(talk) 22:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Request to delete old revisions of file

Hi DESiegel. To help answer a question at the Teahouse, I uploaded the file File:File Upload Wizard screenshot.png as a screenshot to supplement my answer. Before uploading, I foolishly forgot to crop out the browser window, which may be non-free software in violation of copyright. I've cropped the image and uploaded the new file as a revision, but the original file is still viewable in the file history. Could you delete the old revision? Not the whole file, just the old revision. If not WP:CSD#G6 ("created in error") or WP:CSD#G7 ("author requested deletion"), then the deletion would fall under WP:CSD#F9 ("unambiguous copyright infringement"). Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done I don't really think the image of the browser was a problem, Mz7, but I see no reason NOT to revdel. DES ^(talk) 02:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, I suppose it is an over-abundance of caution, but I thought it was necessary. Best, Mz7 (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Could you take a look at a new article in my sandbox?

DES.

Could you take a look at a new article in my sandbox on the playwright Constance Congdon? I can't imagine that there will be any notability issues on this topic, but I would appreciate any comments you might want to make. Thanks

Edward Dixon (talk) 03:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Edward Dixon, I agree that notability should not be an issue here, but I do have a few concerns.

• The exact date of birth for any living person should not be included, per WP:DOB unless it is not only cited to a source, but has been widely published outside of Wikipedia, or else was published by or with the approval of the subject. Please reduce it to the year alone.
• Terms like "outlandish and adventurous" and "ambitious" are value judgements, which is to say opinions. They should not appear in Wikipedia's voice. They should only appear in quotes or paraphrases clearly cited to a specific source. Otherwise they should not be included.
• I have reformatted the External links items. If she has an official site that should be included at the top of this list.
• A list of her works or of her better known works, might be a good idea.

I hope these comments are helpful. DES ^(talk) 03:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, very helpful, of course. I resolved those issues and some others and have submitted it. It is being reviewed. Now my my question is that I am working on another article that I want to put in the sandbox for your review, but right now the Congdon article has redirection tags to it from my sandbox. Can I put another article in my sandbox now without disturbing that activity? Thanks again. Edward Dixon (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Edward Dixon. Yes, you can remove the redirect and replace it with a completely different article draft. You could also create a specific page for the new article in your userspace at, say User:Edward Dixon/drafts/ArticleName or in draft space at Draft:ArticleName, in either case replacing "ArticleName" with the proposed name of your next article. In many ways that is better as it allows you to work on more than one draft at once. But you may do any of these.

On Draft:Constance Congdon, I would advise finding sources for the places where there are now "Citation needed" tags if you possibly can. A reviewer might well have an issue with those.

I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk) 19:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Dumb me! I didn't know that editors were making comments and changes to the article as it was being reviewed! I had invited theroadislong to look at it too but thought he had not. Thanks. I resolved the "citation needed" flags. The citations were already there embedded in the previous source. I seem to be having a problem clearly showing what a citation is a citation for :-). Edward Dixon (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Edward Dixon editors may choose to make comments and edits at any point. They mostly won't edit your user page unless something is badly wrong. Other pages in your userspace (pages with names starting User:Edward Dixon/) many (but not all) editors will hesitate to edit without some sort of invitation, but a request to review a draft or request for help will often be taken as an invitation. And once a page is in draft space, it is fair game for anyone who might be interested.

When a source supports more than one statement in an article or draft, this can be indicated with named references. See Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once. This avoids confusion when a single source is used for multiple facts, or any need to rearrange the text to make citations clear.

It is a good idea to have pages you have created or are interested in on your watchlist. Then check the watchlsit fairly often. This will help avoid surprises. DES ^(talk) 20:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Matt Nolan

Yes, named footnotes was what I needed. Thanks. I put the new article in my sandbox. Would appreciate comments on it, as always. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Dixon (talk • contribs) 22:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I looked at it, Edward Dixon. A few points:

• First and most important, your draft says: " Nolan works with an unusually wide range of materials, including stainless steel and titanium.". This is cited to Dawson, Michael (March 2012). "Matt Nolan: Custom Cymbals (Update)". moderndrummer.com. However that statement isn't verified in that source: it only talks about his work in bronze. Please cite the exact source which discusses his work in other metals. If a cited fact is not found in the cited source, it reduces the credibility of the entire article, so this is a high priority.
• Secondly, always include the author of the article cited when the article has a byline, and include as precise a publication date as is listed. I have corrected the first four citations, leaving the others for you.
• Thirdly, when a source has numbered pages, such as a PDF file often will, include a pages= (or page= if only one page) parameter to specify what pages the source is found on, or if you are referencing only a part of the source, what pages are relevant.
• Fourthly, and less important, if the source is in PDF format, include "|format=PDF" when a source is in PDF format.
• Fifthly, use straight double quotes, not angled quotes or curly quotes.

It seems to me that some additional content might be based on the drummers journal source. I hope this was helpful. DES ^(talk) 03:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Good points all. I am learning a lot from you, but I'm not sure why you say what you did about the Dawson source. It does specifically state Nolan works in stainless steel and titanium??? Am I not understanding something? Edward Dixon (talk) 04:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry Edward Dixon, you are correct. The mention was at the end of the first paragraph of the online article, and there was no further mention beyond that one sentence, so i must have missed it.

However, there is now a larger problem. It seems that the sandbox article started as a copy of Matt Nolan (English cymbal and gong maker), and that when you had edited it significantly, you then copied and pasted it back over the source article. This is a very bad idea please don't do this again. You didn't when you first made the copy put any sort of note on the article talk page. This means that other editors had no warning that their edits during the time that the article was in the sand box were likely to be overwritten by your revised version. You didn't in any way indicate that the sand box was a copy of another article, which means it was technically a copyright infringement, because it failed to give proper attribution to previous editors. Whe you moved it back by copy&paste, you lost the history of edits while in the sandbox, not all of which were yours. This means that the result is also technically an infringement. That is why it is better to make such edits in place, particularly if the article is being actively edited by another editor, or more than one. If you are going to work on a copy, place {{under construction}} on the original article, along with a note on the article's talk page , and include a note on the sandbox's talk page indicating what you are doing and the source of the text, plus a mention in the edit summary when you paste the content into the sandbox.

I am now going to move the sandbox over the article and do a history merge to preserve all the editing history. Had I known that this was a copy intended to replace the original, I would have handled my edits differently. DES ^(talk) 10:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, DES, Sorry that I executed this edit so poorly and made so many procedural errors. I assure you I was acting in good faith, even if naive. I do appreciate your instructions now on how to do it properly and will follow them in the future. However, I am somewhat baffled about what is the current state of this article and the outcome of your efforts. The article currently seems to me almost exactly as I posted it. I had tried to be careful that no intermediate revisions were lost. I was under the full understanding there was none. But if that happened, then I failed in that attempt and I apologize and am glad that those edits can be restored. Also, I am somewhat puzzled by your points about copyright infringement. It didn't occur to me that Wiki editors had any copyright protection, although I assure you I had NO intention to disrespect or dismiss previous edits other than what had become issues by theroadislong's very reasonable introduction of the autobiographical tag. I really do appreciate all of your help, sir. Edward Dixon (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Edward Dixon, I fully understand that all your actions were in good faith. This kind of situation is complex and many more experienced editors may get it wrong. Moreover, i had assuemd because of an error in converting timezones, that the issue was larger than it turned out to be: an edit I thought had been made after you copied the wiki-text was actually before it. The article is as you posted it, except for some small changes made since then. The difference is in the history only, The full sequence of edits is now preserved.

AS to copyright, All contributions are licensed under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. Each editor retains full copyright on each contribution s/he makes. Anyone may reuse or copy them, provided that "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work." (and a few other conditions). On Wikipedia this means leaving the history intact, or else providing a link to the proper history or a comparable note of attribution. For reuse elsewhere, it means a link back to the source article and its history, which constitutes the required attribution, or some equivalent method of attribution. See {{copied}} for use when text is copied from one article to another long-term, as during an article merge.

You did nothing intended to cause a problem. Another time you will understand the issues better. Had another editor edited the article while you were working in the sandbox, (as I first thought) there would have been the problem of how (and whether) to merge that edit in. Use of {{under construction}} warns editors that this sort of thing might be in progress. DES ^(talk) 15:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Krov Menuhin

Hi DES, given your invaluable help in the past, could I kindly ask you if you would offer a little support in the review of the article? It is currently submitted for review but a comment was made that more evidence is required. However, no mention of what evidence and a limited list of their own search left out most of the journals and books and internet sources cited. Any advice?KarenMenuhin (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

KarenMenuhin, What s/he is saying is that the amount of coverage is not enough to establish notability. That is a judgement call, and there is no precise amount that is sufficient. Since the editor making the comment does not know what sources might be available, s/he can't say which ones need to be included. S/he did do a google books search and found a number of publications that mention Krov Menuhin but are apparently not available online. You could see if you can find one or more in a library, and if so, add it as a reference if it has significant coverage. You could search for additional online sources. Or you could wait for the next reviewer, who might have a different opinion of the matter. You could even bypass review and move directly to mainspace, taking a chance that someone would take the same view that the editor who commented dis, and put the article up for deletion. From the snippets displayed on the Google search, at lest the first few seem to be passing mentions, which would not help with notability anyway, unless there is additional relevant content not displayed by the snippets, which there might well be. I hope this is helpful DES ^(talk) 16:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

KarenMenuhin, you might also want to read User talk:FoCuSandLeArN/AFC declines and perhaps leave a message for FoCuSandLeArN on User talk:FoCuSandLeArN if you have further questions about the reasons behind the comment and what would be needed for the article. DES ^(talk) 16:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your assessment, DES. Along those lines, mine would also include that although he might scrape past notability due to the sheer amount of work he's done and the coverage available, the references provided are mostly to his own work. If indeed the article were to be accepted, it would require extensive trimming of irrelevant, unreferenced or CV-like information (I could help you with that later). I'd love to see what other reviewers have to say about it. We have a slight backlog at the moment, but I'm sure you'll receive a proper assessment quite soon. Cheers, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Your response vis a vis "Now that I have a beginning.."

Thanks so much for your reply. Wikipedia, as I'm certain you know, can be daunting for beginners. I must say that the rewards FAR outweigh the confusion and the self-doubt that apply to it. Your encouragement is appreciated and your guidance is Much Appreciated. I will say, however, that the status of the article Alberto Gómez Gómez rests nowhere near my own efforts. It rests with his own accomplishments. I have every confidence that if I do him justice, the article about him and his accomplishments will rise above what I could ever say. I seek only to illuminate them. I'm just positive that you know what I mean by this. Thought, whether any of that makes sense or doesn't, I'm grateful for you response and advice. Best wishes to you always, Thanks again, Rmark1030 (talk) 04:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Craig Sheppard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Pritchard. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Questions about Village Pump, and also about "canvassing"

Hi DESiegel.
      I have a couple questions:  When I first opened the Miss Cleo RFC, I posted a notice about it on the Village Pump (I believe it was under "miscellaneous"). I no longer see it there, but I assume that it has simply been archived (although I can't locate it). Anyway here are my questions:

• Would it be OK for me to post another notification there about the RFC when there are just a few days left before it closes for comments, basically just pointing out the fact that it exists and is soon going to close?
• You've already participated in that RFC; but if you had not, could this message itself possibly have been considered "canvassing"? (I realize that in this case there was no need to specifically identify the RFC, but suppose it had been necessary.)
        Thank you for your help.
  Richard27182 (talk) 09:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel.  I just wanted to make sure you haven't forgotten about me.
Richard27182 (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Richard27182, and sorry about the delay. In general asking a single editor advoice about how to proceed is not canvassing, and should not be taken as such (of course one never knows how someone may take things). Posting a followup notice that an RFC will be closing soon, or that additional participation would be welcome, is generally appropriate as long as it isn't done too often, and any notices are worded neutrally. DES ^(talk) 16:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Avagnale from Ruffo article

John Ruffo

First off, thank you so much for taking a look at the article. Second, I am not understanding your rationale for removal of the See Also. They are both notorious bank fraud and confidence criminals, both are from NYC, both successfully defrauded banks for millions, and both have proven quite elusive to capture by law enforcement. Granted that Avagnale has much higher stock in terms of celebrity status because of a book, a film, a musical etc, but from a law enforcement perspective (and in terms of an article about their criminal past), it makes no difference. Both white collar perps with a similar MO. Thoughts? --Supaflyrobby (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Supaflyrobby, this really belongs on Talk:John Ruffo. I am going to copy it there, and reply there. Also please use wiki-links, not URLs to refer to Wikipedia articles. DES ^(talk) 16:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Jess Greenberg

Hi DESiegel. Since you've already posted there and are an administrator, I wonder if you could take another look at Talk:Jess Greenberg#Reasons for popularity. The entire thread has been removed twice by Tuesdaymight as a BLP violation, but I can't see any violation at all. I think the comments made by you and the others are quite appropriate responses to the IP's original question and are most certainly not "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." as stated in this edit sum. I've tried explaining things at User talk:Tuesdaymight#Jess Greenberg, but the thread was removed again even after Dontreader edited their post to remove any mention of a specific body part. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Please consider that according to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: When adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page the material must adhere strictly to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), No original research (NOR)

And also, contentious material about living persons that is unsourced — even if it’s just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. And further, according to Wikipedia guidelines, you must never edit in such a way to change the meaning of someone’s comment — as has happened to my comment and all the comments that follow the changes that were made. The burden of proof is on the editor who reinstated the section. So it needs to be proven why material that violates so many Wikipedia guidelines should stay and violate even more. It is rude and offensive to be discussing a particular woman's breasts in this context. Best wishes Tuesdaymight (talk) 07:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I will reply to Tuesdaymight's post at User talk:Tuesdaymight#Jess Greenberg since the exact same post was made there and it will be a little easier to follow if things are kept in one place. I will, however, answer any comments directed to me by DESiegel here if necessary. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi again DES. Just thought I'd let you know about WP:BLPN#Talk:Jess Greenberg since it involves the removal an article talk page post you made at Talk:Jess Greenberg. Please feel free to comment (either way). Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Andrea Liberovici page in english

Dear David, I'm a new user of wikipedia,and I started one months ago 'cause I start to edit the Italian page of Andrea liberovici, composer and director I know very well. I'm doing the same for the english page, 'cause I don't know how started this, but I notce the re where many issue from wikiedia, and I'd like to contribute to improve the voice. Now, I did some work, and I had some advice from others in the teahouse. I try to follow all the instruction...can you please tell me if everything I did is correct? I don't know if I can go forward or correct something. Thank you in advance Irene--Irenenovello (talk) 10:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Irenenovello. I do see some issues with the Andrea Liberovici article, but nothing that can't be fixed.

• The third paragraph of the Biography section is a quote. That is fine, but direct quotes should be attributed to a specific person (or entity if it was an organizational statement) in the article text, not jsut in the citation. This is often done with a phrase such as "According to John Doe, ..." or "As Jane Roe wrote in the Weekly Mastodon, ..." or "Noted critic Fred Bogs wrote: ..." or some similar phrase that tells who said this and puts it in context for the reader.
  • Also is "he his a tragic musicians" the way the published quote had it, or is this an error in transcription?
• It is not usual to list the birth and death dates of relatives of the subject, such as his father, unless these are particularly relevant. I don't see them as being so here.
• Please give fuller details about sources in citations, not just a link and a title.
• For sources that are not in English, please provide a translation of the title of the source. If you can provide a link to a translated copy of the entire source, that is very helpful (not a machine translation). Failing that, if you can provide a translated version of the key passage from the source, that would be useful. I can show you how such a passage could be formatted, using the quote= parameter of {{cite web}}.
• If English-language sources are available, citing some would be a good idea.
• Significant text seems to be directly copied from the primolevicenter source This must be changed at once. Copyright violation is taken very seriously.

I hope those commetns are helpful. DES ^(talk) 23:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Edward Dixon request

DES, I have a new article nearly ready in my sandbox. Could you take a look at it and give me your thoughts as always. Thanks. Edward Dixon (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry

Hi DESiegel.  I guess I must have made a bit of a pest of myself with all the questions I kept asking you. Sorry. I hope we'll still keep in touch and exchange messages from time to time.
Rich
Richard27182 (talk) 11:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Richard27182, there is no need to apologize I have been busy off-wiki. You may have noticed I have not edited much the past few days. I hope to respond to you and others soon. DES ^(talk) 13:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel.  Sorry I misunderstood. I look forward to hearing from you.
Rich
Richard27182 (talk) 07:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel. I received your reply answering my questions. As always, thank you very much. And again, I'm sorry about misunderstanding.
Richard27182 (talk) 07:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia career

Thanks for the advice and suggestions. I think it's a fun project and will keep going. There's an incredible investment that you and the other 10+ year editors have with the project. You folks have come through that huge spike in growth and turmoil, out of which WP became what it is today. When new people barge in and don't demonstrate the respect for what WP has become, it's no wonder there are strong reactions and some suspicion. Luckily the site has developed a balance of Admins that work to achieve healthy growth. So... I owe you one like I said before, and if there is something you find yourself working on that you need an extra typist for, shoot word to me and I'd be glad to help out. Hopefully not a lot of complicated coding, I only have programming experience from 1987 (10. Print "hello"; 15. Go to 10 >run). --Cityside189 (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Feedback wanted

Hello. I am a bit frustrated getting specific feedback on a page I'm creating. Page is for The law offices of Meyer and Blumenshine". I have used another law firm who has a wiki page, but I have been critisized for being too promotional. The last decline provided no information. I woul appreciate any specific help you could provide. Thank you, heide oconnell Heideoconnell (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Heideoconnell. I am sorry you are finding this frustrating. Tokyogirl79 (a very experienced editor) did supply a pair of useful comments in the comment section. The first of these read:

This doesn't have any sources to show that this law firm is notable enough for an entry. Most law firms aren't, which is why you need to show news coverage that specifically highlights this firm. Sometimes notable cases can extend coverage, but coverage is not always automatically inherited by them covering notable cases, especially if the firm is only briefly mentioned.

She also advised that the "practice area" section be deleted. I concur with both pieces of advice. A Wikipedia article is not, or should not be, similar to a marketing brochure or press release.

The first thing is to find independent reliable sources that discuss this firm in some detail. This means not publications of the firm, not PR, not blogs or one-person websites, not social media, not passing mentions or directory listings, and not purely local coverage. Unless several such sources can be found, there is no basis for a Wikipedia article. The article should be mostly based directly on content from such sources. Some facts can be filled in from the firm's own website, or other self-published spourves, but still needs to be supported by a source. This is mandated by our notability and verifibility policies, and by our policy that articles all be written from a neutral point of view.

If you can find multiple items of news coverage, online or offline, that is primarily about the firm, or at least devotes several paragraphs to the firm, or if the firm was discussed at length in a book from a major publisher, that would be sufficient for notability.

As to basing format on other existing articles, there are a good many especially ones created some time ago, that do not fully comply with our standards. That is not a reason to create more such articles. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Do you recall which articles you used as a basis? DES ^(talk) 19:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

A

Andrew Phillip Almanza

Hello, I've re added the CSD tag to this article. Consider your refusal to CSD again. Regards Hitro talk 21:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

HitroMilanese, I still maintain that this was not a proper A7 speedy deletion, and had that been the only issue would have continued to decline the speedy, and taken things to deletion review had another admin deleted on that basis. I was not aware of the previous AfD -- that changes things completely. DES ^(talk) 23:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Your reason for declination was "Urban dictionary", which was totally absurd, I have never seen people supporting urban dictionary on Wikipedia, if you have then give me the link of the discussin. This page was the reason for your declination...I still don't understand what propelled you to decline speedy A7 on this article, I was always aware of previous AfD, still it was A7 at that moment when you declined. However, it's deleted now.Case is Closed. Best regards Hitro talk 19:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

HitroMilanese, Urban Dictionary is an article on Wikipedia, it therefore follows that the site is notable (and in any case this would be easy to establish if it were challenged) even if it is not a reliable source. Being featured on a notable website does not establish notability, but it is a claim of significance, nor was it the only claim in the article as it then stood. (Remember that a claim need not be supported by any source at all to avoid an A7.) Given a precisely similar article about a different person tomorrow, I would act in precisely the same way. A claim need not establish notability, it is enough that it indicates that there is a chance of it being established given further research. It is not a question of "supporting" the Urban Dictionary, still less of using it as a reliable source, but of recognizing its existence and popularity, so that being featured on it indicates some notice has been taken of the subject so featured. DES ^(talk) 03:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imjandarwal (talk • contribs) 12:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Imjandarwal (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks alot for directing me to a good way of using wiki. Imjandarwal (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)--

Db-G14

I opened this discussion related to this template in the hopes that it will quickly be discussed out of existence.

I also modified the template so it is clearly no longer a speedy-deletion template as such, so I removed the {{db-policy}}.

My hope is that the discussion will be WP:SNOW-closed within a day or to in favor of rejecting this proposal, at which time Template:Db-g14 can be deep, er, g-sixed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

davidwr I saw, and indeed commented in, that discussion. I admit that I intended the {{db-policy}} tag as in part a form of trouting, but also the template as written was not suitable even if such a proposal should be (god forbid) approved. However I won't insist on it, as long as editors won't be mislead into using the "criterion" nor over-hasty admins into deletign based on it, pending actual consensus. DES ^(talk) 21:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

davidwr, I note that as i was writing the above response the template was deleted for the second time, so at least 4 editors including myself thought speedy deletion of this was proper. DES ^(talk) 21:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't see the previous deletion until you mentioned it. I linked to it on the discussion page so, hopefully, others will notice if this ever pops up again. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

And i misread it, davidwr, somehow thinking that both deletions were recent. Anyway, I think this one is dealt with, as I see no support for such an idea. DES ^(talk) 22:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

On a related note, from the moment that template was created until the moment I edited it so that it no longer represented policy speedy deletion was right-and-proper. However, changing the template as I did was also an acceptable way of resolving the problem of a page mis-representing policy. In this case, there was a big enough AVALANCHE that it really didn't matter if the discussion ended after a week, a day (which I consider a reasonable minimum in cases like this) or the actual less than 90 minutes from SemiDot modifying WP:CSD to the template itself being deleted (which effectively made any further pile-on discussion against the proposal a moot point). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

A quick question about the Miss Cleo RfC

Hi DESiegel.  I have a quick question about the Miss Cleo RfC. The RfC template was automatically removed (on schedule at 30 days), and I posted a request for formal closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.  My question is this: I did not add any templates or anything to the Miss Cleo talk page RfC section to indicate it was closed or archived or anything; should I have done so before requesting the formal closure? And if the answer is "yes" then what should I do to correct for that? Thank you.
Richard27182 (talk) 09:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

hello again Richard27182. No having asked for a formal closure, there is nothing more for you to do. If you thought that the consensus was clear, you could simply act on it, stating your reading of it, a non-closure or informal closure. But when a formal closure is desired, there is nothing to do but wait for a closer to come forward -- like everything else it is a volunteer position. Since I expressed a view during the RfC, I should not close it, had I not done so, i might offer to close. DES ^(talk) 11:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel.  Thanks for your reply. I later realized I could have just checked the previous RfC I'd started (the Technicolor one) and use the "view history" tab to examine the various stages it went through in the process of being automatically delisted through to the final formal closure. So I did so. And I was very surprised to see that both were closed by the same editor! I had nothing to do with that fact; I don't know that editor, and I've never contacted that editor or specifically sought him out, or anything like that. (I wouldn't even have noticed that it was the same editor if I hadn't been doing that research I previously mentioned.) Anyway I'm worried that someone else may notice the coincidence and think it might not have been a coincidence and possibly suspect me of something I haven't done (and would never do). Is this anything to worry about, or is it the kind of thing that is expected to happen from time to time?
Richard27182 (talk) 09:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Richard27182, only a few editors, mostly admins and very experienced editors, do formal clsoes of RfCs at all frequently. If you look at the closings of a bunch of RFCs, tyou will see the same few names over and over as closers. Seeing the same clsoer on two random RFCs is quite normal. DES ^(talk) 13:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel.  Thank you for putting my mind at ease. I won't worry about that anymore.
Richard27182 (talk) 07:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, DESiegel/Archive 13. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by DES ^(talk) 22:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

WP:Teahouse/Questions#Length of review process

Very good answer there, DES. --ColinFine (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Draft Krov Menuhin

Dear DES, this article has now been turned down twice for 2 different reasons. My response below is to the editor who made the latest comment. I do not know if this editor has checked the citations and numerous references made. I have tried very hard to read and abide by all rules in regard of this draft. The comment left by the editor Joseph2302 appears to be brief; an opinion unsupported by justified evidence. Any thoughts upon how I can proceed please? And again - much thanks for your time and effort! KarenMenuhin (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC) Comment: Not notable and probably never will be. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Response: Could you tell me how many citations you have checked and why you have made the comments you have, please? There are many references to Krov Menuhin's films and work, including the honour of being chosen twice to sit on the Rolex jury awards, plus a documentary film made about his life and work by TF1, the French state owned TV station and being personally chosen by Hans Hass to take over the Hans Hass award. There are numerous and varied articles in magazines, books and journals about his life time work plus 40 odd years working and making wildlife films, many of which are on youtube, but also are in the BBC, Channel 4 and TF1 archives. I will send you the latest magazine article from Scuba Diver Ocean Planet (Asian Geographic) to give you an update of how notable he is in his field of work. If you take the time just to read a few of the Rolex award jury members you will find they are made up of global illuminaries, who are each one, internationally recognised leaders in their own fields.204.236.116.217 (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC) KarenMenuhin (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)KarenMenuhin (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not know how it happened...

Hello,  DESiegel,

I do not know how it happened, but I wrote UTC, instead of your initials DES! It’s been a day without even smallest break from the hustle and bustle, and I'm sure it was not the only one my blunder during that day, and I'm sure you know how it is, when you found yourself in the middle of ten urgent matters and they all are "first on the list". So, I think, you will understand me. Of course, my gratitude was addressed to you, as your warm welcome and clear explanation was a really good thing; and when (right now) I “went” to the Teahouse and noticed my silly mistake, I just said: “Oh, God.”

I'll be always glad to hear from you and to read your words of approval or criticism on my future article (s), as I know, that it always will be unbiased, friendly and intelligent conclusion.

Best Regards, Chris.

P.S. Should I sent this message to Teahouse to correct my blunder? Here I'm displaying my previous message again, but now written by the right way:

I thank all, who responded to my letter Reliable Sources. To DES I would like to say special Thanks for detailed, clear explanation of how to proceed on the article Ancient Corinth. Yes, I can add some details to existing article, using citations from Elisavet Spathari's book, and also upload several photos, which I made on the archaeological site. Regarding the advice, kindly given me by DES, to write the article about Elisavet Spathari, I have to admit, that I thought about it myself, but I (as well) could not find even a short article, written about her. Of course, her books are the complete proof, that she is an expert in this field, but there is no information about the author even in her book 'Corinth-Mycenae', which I bought in Corinth. Anyway, for the start, I'd like to look at the new articles, proposed by other editors for discussion, to see how these articles looks like in its “unpolished” form, but the new problem suddenly occurred: I simply can’t to find the tool to display them. Can someone tell me how to find a list of the most recent articles for editing?

Regards, Chris. Chris Oxford (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Great thanks to all who advised me. It was very helpful.

Regards, ChrisChris Oxford (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Jessica Frost

Hello DESiegel! In reference to the upcoming film Jessica Frost. Does imdb not count as a primary source if it includes a WGA credit? Otherwise I know there are a couple of local articles but I don't think they're available online. At least not yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkrauser1 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 20 September 2015‎

Bkrauser1, yes, an IMDB entry with a WGA credit should count as an acceptable primary source. However, there is so much prejudice against the IMDB because it is overused in cases where it is not reliable, that many editors will simply discount it, overlooking the specifics of the situation. In any case, a mere cast list, even if reliably sourced to a secondary source, is not sufficient to establish or even really help establish notability, as it does not constitute "significant discussion" of the topic. Moreover, a single source is rarely enough to establish notability, unless it is a book-length source that discusses the topic extensively. If the IMDB is the only source available, then you could write up a stub and put it in a userspace page, such as User:Bkrauser1/drafts/Jessica Frost, and wait until additional sources are available. When they are available they can be added and the draft submitted for review or simply moved to mainspace.

Offline sources can be cited, but can you confidently assert that they discuss the subject in enough detail to establish notability? Purely local sources are apt to be considered of lesser value in establishing notability, also. There is also WP:CRYSTAL which says that future events should not be included in articles unless there is enough coverage of the plans and prospect to be notable in and of itself. For films, it is not usual to create an article until principle photography has at least started, with a source to verify this. Is this information helpful? If you wan to go the userspace route, i will be glad to help with citation formatting. DES ^(talk) 00:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

DESiegel thank you for your help thus far. the userspace route would probably be the best way to go; at least until I can find some sources beyond local blotter. I'm not sure if principle photography has started yet for this film but I'll scan the trades for anything relevant. userspace can be edited by multiple people right? Like a pre-wikipedia article?Bkrauser1 (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Also I'm playing with sandbox to practice formatting. Is there a way to see it as if it were an article so I know I'm doing it right?Bkrauser1 (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Bkrauser1, yes, multiple people, indeed any Wikipedia editor, can edit a userspace page, but people are less inclined to do so without invitation for a userspace page than for a draftsapce page (a page whose name begins with "Draft:"). Once you issue an invitation, then it is open season.

During an edit, you can click "Show preview" (the button just roight of "save page") to see what your edit woudl look like, or you can just save it. However there are some details that you won't be able to simulate well. You can't, for instance, use a copyrighted image in user or draft space. To see how the image formatting would work, just pick a random commons image, and keep your planned image name in an HTML comment or on the talk page. Much the same applies to categories.

A few comments on your sandbox version:

1. the alt tag is rather long. Are you planning to have a video in the info box? this is frowned on, usually only a single still is allowed if the image is copyrighted, as a trailer or video poster would be.
2. Don't put in a table of contents manually. Instead include sections. Each top-level section has ==Section name== on a line at the start of the section. (sub-sections have three equals signs on each side of the section name, sub-sub-sections have 4, etc) he wiki software will automatically add a ToC if there are 4 or more sections.
3. The cast section should be a bulletted list, with an asterisk (*) at the start of each row.

Do you want me to make some or all of these changes in your sandbox page, or move it to a user page other than your sandbox? DES ^(talk) 03:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Shriram Automall India

Hi, Thanks a lot for your prompt response and edit, I understood that Wiki don't include term Ltd. or Inc, but here I would like to know if I can include Limited instead of Ltd.? also, I have a question, what happen if it will remain as an individual page for readers other than a merged one? In that case, shall I have to improve it further by including more information with possible source for notability? Kindly suggestRwadhaawa (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Rwadhaawa. Please understand that I am just one editor here, although a somewhat experienced editor, and I have no dictatorial powers. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies) is a naming convention, not a policy, and there could be exceptions. It says:

The legal status suffix of a company (such as Inc., plc, LLC, and those in other languages such as GmbH, AG, and S.A.) is not normally included in the article title (for example, Microsoft Corporation, Nestlé S.A., Aflac Incorporated, and Deutsche Post AG). When disambiguation is needed, the legal status, an appended "(company)", or other suffix can be used to disambiguate (for example, Oracle Corporation, Borders Group, Be Inc., and Illumina (company)).

Personally, i don't see any good reason to include "Ltd" or "Limited" in the article title in this case, but a discussion on Talk:Shriram Automall India could decide otherwise. If you really think the article would be better with "Limited" in the article title, state your reasons there, and we can see what consensus develops. Of course if this article is to be merged, the title no longer matters, because there won't be a separate title.

Whether to merge is a judgement call, it is not in any way required. I think the sources now cited in th4e article are enough to establish notability, although only just enough. The question is would it be more helpful to readers as part of a larger article about the parent group. Note that a merge need not be forever, i have seen articles merged and later split off again when more information was available from reliable sources.

If this article is NOT to be merged, then it would, in my view, be good to expand it with further information, if possible. This is not strictly required, but would surely help any reader. Does that answer your questions? DES ^(talk) 18:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your valuable suggestions. I understood the Wiki guidelines regarding "Ltd". I'll try my best to improve it further with reliable information as what you have suggested. Also, I would like to know, if in case me or any other editor from Wiki add extra information to expand it further, then, this article has to be go though with review process again automatically? or I have to put it again for review?Rwadhaawa (talk) 11:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Rwadhaawa, I'm glad to have helped a bit. There is no formal review process required for any additions or expansions. Any editor can at any time examine any article and make whatever changes he or she thinks proper, including adding maintenance tags, or even nominate it for deletion. But that is no different for this article at this stage than for any other. DES ^(talk) 12:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, You really helped me a lot. thanks. one last thing I would like o know, as you can see, in my article there is a proposed merge option open, what is the procedure to stop the merge option. as, you can see Shriram Group also required improvement. in that case can i first improve my own article instead of merge it with Shriram Group? in that case the merge option will be removed or what is the procedure? kindly suggestRwadhaawa (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Rwadhaawa, the merge notice is generated by the template {{mergeto|Shriram Group|date=September 2015}} and that can be removed. However I think that with both articles being relatively short, a merge might well be a good idea. I suggest that this be discussed at Talk:Shriram Group#Merge of Automalls, where editors can give their reasons why a merge should or should not be done. If there is consensus to merge, i can help with doing a merge, or so could any experienced editor. If there is no consensus to merge, then the {{mergeto}} template can simply be removed. There is nothing wrong with merging two articles both in need of improvement, but there is nothing mandatory about it either. It is an option. DES ^(talk) 12:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, It was really a great help from your end. Well, I would like to leave it on experienced editors like you and others to decide it whether a merge will be needed or not. Also, I am gathering more information to expand it further for more possible improvement. As what I have been suggested earlier, shall I add their bidding process for readers?Rwadhaawa (talk) 08:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Rwadhaawa If (and only if) you have and will cite a reliable source, preferably an independent third-party source, then such an addition wo0uld be a good idea, in my view. DES ^(talk) 11:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Sir, As suggested, I have added some more information on Shriram Automall - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shriram_Automall_India, kindly provide your suggestions to improve it further.Rwadhaawa (talk) 09:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Just a hello

Hi DESiegel.  It's been a while since we've communicated, so I thought I'd write just to say hello and I hope things are going well for you.
Richard27182 (talk) 10:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Richard27182, reasonably well. Some difficulties off-wiki, but nothing that can't be handled. I hope you are doing well. DES ^(talk) 12:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your help and representing Wikipedia in a thoughtful and gracious manner! C S Chaffee (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you once again for your help on Draft:Chet Bowers. I was informed last week that the subject has been diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor, and while none of that should have any bearing on this process or his notability, it did sadden me that his opportunity to speak for himself, and his work, was coming to a close. It made me a bit more edgy. I welcome your help and recognize it as a sincere and responsible representation of what is fair.C S Chaffee (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Very New To Wiki- First Article

DESiegel

I am very new to wiki and this is my first article. It was rejected once with the citations being questioned. can you please help?

JBarnes77 (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, JBarnes77. The one event guideline may be a problem with this article. The later activism and continuing coverage may be enough to avoid that. Or it would be possible to rewrite this as an article about the event of Jones's accusation and dismissal from the SEALs. I have edited a bit, mostly on reference formatting. What is needed here is to incorporate some of the news stories and other sources now at the bottom of the article into the body as proper citations. i would suggest using {{cite news}}, {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} to format them, but that is not at all required. At the same time the article itself could be expanded, particularly in the later life section, but perhaps also in other sections, with content from those sources. Note that Wikipedia articles should never be cited as sources. Nor should database search links, especially ones that might return different results in future. Use those searches to find specific published sources, and then cite those sources.

I have done a few edits on the draft. I will not have time to do more tonight, and probably not for a while, but I will look in at this draft again when and if I can. I hope this helps a bit. DES ^(talk) 01:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

DES,

  Thank you so much. This helps a lot. I will work on it this week

J JBarnes77 (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Glad to have helped, JBarnes77. Oh a minor point about wiki formatting. Starting a line with one or more blank spaces puts the entire paragraph into "prefix mode" when lines are not wrapped, a different font is used, and a grey background color is displayed. This is intended for display of computer code and similar use. Trying to make a paragraph indent its first line is possible but much more trouble than it is worth, IMO, I advise not bothering. If you feel you must, use multiple   codes, this is the code for a "non-breaking space", each will display as a spwce but not be wrapped and not trigger prefix mode. DES ^(talk) 02:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete a "template"

Sir, Plz tell me,how can I delete a "template." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilyaskhorasani (talk • contribs) 05:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Sir, Plz tell me,how can I delete a "template". Ilyaskhorasani (talk) 05:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)--

Ilyaskhorasani, that rather depends on what template it is and why you want to delete it. The basic process is at Templates for Discussuion, generally known as TfD. There you need to specify your reasons for suggesting that a template be deleted, and follow the steps specified for nominating a template. Then the issue may be discussed by other editors. If there is a consensus to delete, an admin will delete the template. Other outcomes are possible. There are limited cases, specified at WP:CSD where a template may be "speedy" deleted. But those are narrow, and only rarely apply. I could give better advice if you told me the specifics of the situation. DES ^(talk) 11:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DESiegel. You have new messages at Tiggerjay's talk page.
Message added 13:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tiggerjay (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	In my opinion... Darknipples (talk) 06:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Coincidence?

Hi, DESiegel. Thanks for your great work at the Teahouse, you're one of my role models there. I have run into a situation that's made me slightly suspicious. As you may know I like to help out new users who have run smack into our COI policy but want articles written about themselves (or their companies or organizations). Recently I worked with SheilaCameronArtist who came to the Teahouse and provided sources for an article about her. While writing the article I learned she had relocated from LA to Grass Valley, CA, which I had previously never heard of.

Today, I have come across an already-created article, Zinfandel Advocates and Producers, about an organization that's based in... Grass Valley, CA. (The article has been nominated for deletion as failing WP:N.) At first I chalked this up to an amusing coincidence. Then a third user, PH Solution, began expressing interest in the Zinfandel Advocates and Producers article; they haven't edited any other mainspace article as of when I last checked. Especially given the recent issues Wikipedia has had with paid editing, I can't help but wonder if there is a user or group of users targeting subjects in the Grass Valley area who might want Wikipedia articles about them to exist. The users I've dealt with directly have been quite well-behaved and aware of Wikipedia policies to some degree, but that in itself is a little suspicious, given the typical behavior of people who come to write their first articles with COI. It would set my mind at ease if an administrator checked for sockpuppeting here. Thanks in advance, for either checking or explaining why you won't. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 00:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pest, but should I take it from your lack of response to this question that you will not be addressing it? —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 17:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, GrammarFascist, I have mostly taken low-hanging fruit in my limited wiki-tiem the past few days. I will look at this more closely later today if at all possible. Off-hand, without looking at any of the articles involved, my tendency is to assume coincidence. DES ^(talk) 17:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem, DES, we're all doing this in our spare time and nobody has an unlimited amount of that. (Though I have no idea how time-consuming my request would be.) Intellectually I'm inclined to chalk it up to coincidence but I can't shake this 'funny feeling' I have.

On another note, would you mind if I cleaned up some of your occasional typos in postings at the Teahouse? In that venue I didn't want to just do it without asking. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 19:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Feel free, GrammarFascist. On regular talk apges it soesn't matter so much, but on the Teahouse where we are trying to look good for newcommers and peopel who may not have english as their first language it might. Thanks for the offer. DES ^(talk) 19:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Kindly look over the page I have been developing?

Hi. I am new on Wikipedia and am trying very hard to abide by all the guidelines. Would you be so kind as to look over the page I have been developing and perhaps give me your comments and insight. I would like to submit the page soon. I am sure that when the page goes "live", others will be eager to contribute. This evening I have had to reword some sections because of copyright issues, and I believe everything is in accordance with Wikipedia principles now.

My page on MICHAEL LAUCKE is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Natalie.Desautels/sandbox

Thank you so much in advance for your kind response.

Merci!

Natalie Desautels — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natalie.Desautels (talk • contribs) 07:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

A question about the charas RfC

Hi DESiegel.  I have a question about the RfC about charas. Some days ago its RfC template was automatically removed (after the normal 30 days). I didn't see anything happening to that section of the talk page after that, so I posted a message there asking how people felt about requesting a formal closure. But even though I pinged everyone involved (including you) no one has responded. I'm wondering if I did something inappropriate; or if something has occurred concerning that RfC that I'm unaware of. Thank you for your helping me to better understand this whole RfC process.
Richard27182 (talk) 09:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Anna Akana

I see you were a frequent editor there, I took a pretty heavy hand to the page. If you feel I went too far, no worries about restoring some. The whole thing read with a 14-year-old fanboy feel to it. JesseRafe (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Bill Alexander, theatre director

Bill Alexander (director)

thanks for your comments, really useful - I'm learning!

re the Personal Life info, I guess I do think that the fact that they have grandchildren is relevant as this is an important part of his life, still no idea how to cite it

yesterday (29/9) I went through all the entries in Later Work adding citations. They've gone!! Did I mess up with the saving? Must I go through the whole process again??

and finally, I see that you've edited Bill's name to 'Alexander' whereas I used the style FirstName LastName in each entry. Is there a reason for this other than Wikipedia style? can I use FirstName Lastname?

thanks again (I've learned a new word too - who knew that ~ was a tilde?)

Moobel (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Moobel. You didn't save any edit to the page since [3] this edit at 07:58 on 29 September 2015‎. Any edits by you after that date/time must not have been saved. However I currently see 26 citations to sources, and I'm not sure what would be missing. Note that some things that were inserted as ordinary links have been converted into proper citations.

That change was actually made in this edit by Melcous. It complies with our Manual of Style, which says (in MOS:SURNAME) "After the initial mention of any name, the person should generally be referred to by surname only, without an honorific prefix such as "Mr", "Mrs", "Miss", or "Ms", or by a pronoun.". There would need to be a good reason to do otherwise. In cases where two or more people with the same surname are frequently referred to in an article (such as two spouses, a parent and child, or two siblings) use of first name/last name can avoid confusion. For example this was done on Tamara Champlin, where the subject worked with her husband frequently both before and after their marriage. But unless there is such a good reason, Wikipedia articles normally refer to people by their surnames/family names after the first mention (where a full name is normally used). If you think there is a good reason to treat this article differently, please post to Talk:Bill Alexander (director) and see if your suggestion gets consensus.

As to citing the number of grandchildren, you first must find a reliable source which says that they have four grandchildren. Then you cite that source just as any other source. The Cite toolbar can make this easier. If you are having trouble with this, post to Talk:Bill Alexander (director) and list all the details you have about the source, (title, url if online, author if listed, date of publication if known, title of work (magazine, newspaper or website or other enclosing work) isbn if a book, page number if printed or PDF, etc) and ask for help in formatting the citation. Place {{request edit}} or {{help me}} after the post to draw attention to it. Someone will respond.

I hope this is helpful DES ^(talk) 14:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Cyarist Relativity: A form of National Government

Hi DESiegel A request for help and guidance from Mike at Cyarist Relativity/sandbox - see Draft:Cyarist Relativity This artical for submission was reviewed and declined 19 August 2015 by KylieTastic. and again reviewed and declined 27 August 2015 by Primefac

I am new to Wikipedia and not particularly computer competent. Firstly is this article suitable for creation on Wikipedia please let me know.If yes what actions do i need to take achieve entry. I think i may be having problems with citations if those i have used are not adequate or if i should be doing something else please point me in the right direction.

Many thanks Mike at Cyarist Relativity Forms of Government >2048 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike at Cyarist Relativity (talk • contribs) 20:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Your comment

I read your comment in the WikiProject Politics discussion with regard to making sockpuppetry accusations. I never made an accusation; I only asked the editor if he was using mulitple accounts because of the very suspicious circumstances. As it turns out, the other editor has fully admitted that he was indeed canvassed by his friend - off of Wikipedia - to participate in the discussion[4], even though his friend had claimed he did not do that.[5] I referred them to the applicable policies and guidelines they violated. I'm not sure what, if anything should be done about that, but at the very least I would think that the comments of the friend who was canvassed to come here should be removed. But I'll leave that to your judgment. Czoal (talk) 02:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Czoal, in my view this comment while it didn't explicitly say "I accuse you of socpuppetry" amounted to exactly that accusation. ("Did you shoot Roger Akroyd in the Library with the gun" is an accusation, even if it is in the form of a question.) As to whether asking someone with knowledge of a subject off-wiki for an opinion, even if this leads to the requestee commenting on-wiki, i don't regard this as "canvassing or as meat-puppetry. In any case this should be settled by weight of sources, not by weight of numbers. I do think you are making too large a point of a fairly minor issue. Others might disagree, of course -- i am only one editor. DES ^(talk) 04:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Calling your personal friend and telling them to comment in a discussion on Wikipedia is obviously canvassing by any reasonable measure. And by not disclosing he invited his friend to the RfC, that is meat-puppetry. Editors cannot recruit their friends to join a discussion. The policy says so. Your Roger Akroyd comparison, while quite funny, is not at all an accusation. It's simply a question. An accusation would have been, "I think you shot him." I honestly didn't know if both editors were him, but it was awfully suspicous. So I asked. Czoal (talk) 04:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Civility

Hi, DES,
I saw a note on the draft version of this article that you would be reviewing it. However, it was moved to main space today. It needs some work but I just wanted to let you know that it is out of draft space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

HI Liz. All I thought that I did, and all I intended to do, was use the AFChelper script to post a single short comment and notify the draft creator, that i had deleted the obstructing redirect, so the move to mainspace could be made. This should not have left a notice that I was in the process of reviewing. If it did, either I did something incorrectly or there is a bug. DES ^(talk) 22:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, this was the edit I saw but the draft page has now been made into a redirect. But the message said that the article was due to be reviewed within the week. I'm not familiar with AfC templates so I'm not sure if this is a typical result. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Liz, I used to to a fair amount of AfC reviewing, but have done almost none since returning from my last Wikibreak, and I think the scripts have changed. So I'm not sure either. I may ask at the AFC help desk. DES ^(talk) 22:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Liz. Apparently i was in the process of adding my comment to say it was OK to move the draft to mainspace at the very moment that it was moved to mainspace, so i in effect reverted the creation of the redirect. I should have gotten an edit conflict, but I suspect that because the page was technically deleted and recreated, the edit conflict detection logic didn't work. Anyway things look fine as they stand. DES ^(talk) 22:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Bill Alexander (director)

Dear DES

I've been through the Bill Alexander (director) page and added citations. All sections now have citations where requested (except grandchildren) yet throughout the page the words [citation needed] are still shown against many entries. Am I able to remove these? I assume that it is the role of a senior wiki bod? in which case, how do I request their removal? Or does the reason that they are still there indicate that the citation source is thought somehow to be inadequate? Thank you Moobel (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Moobel, {{cn}} (citation needed) tags are not added by a bot, but by an ordinary editor. The same is true of removing the tags, no bot is involved, nor is any sort of "senior" editor required. Any editor who has provided a citation to a reliable source which supports the challenged content may remove the tag. So may any editor who finds that there is currently such a citation in place. This should only be done if the editor honestly believes that the citation(s) is/are to a reliable source (or sources) and fully supports the challenged content. If in doubt, ask an experienced editor or the editor who initially placed the cn tag(s) or both. But if you are reasonably confident that the citations are sufficient, be bold and remove them. It is a good idea to note in the edit summary "sources have been csited, removing cn tags" or something of the sort. The same applies to an overall "refimprove" tag, and to other maintenance tags. When the issue has been fixed, any editor may remove the tags, including the editor who made the fix. DES ^(talk) 18:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, DES, I understand

for clarification, I had intended to write 'bod' as in body/person - it's an English slang thing - I know that wiki wouldn't ever resort to 'bots' (also sometime English slang for a baby's bottom, never mind a robot) Moobel (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

And as I look back, Moobel, you did write "bod" I just mis-read it. However, you might be surprised what Wikipedia does use bots for. For example RFC tags are removed from talk pages when their specified end-dates are past, and many talk-pages are auto-archived. Also you might be surprised how many relatively new editors think that maintenance tags will be automatically removed when the issue is fixed, or that they were automatically applied in the first place or both. Read through the Teahouse archives and you will see a lot of people posting who obviously thought that. So one of my semi-auto buttons was pushed by your question. Anyway, happy editing. DES ^(talk) 16:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I need the advice of an administrator

Hi DESiegel.  I need the advice of an administrator. (For the sake of full disclosure, I am also checking with one or two other administrators.) I'm currently involved in a discussion ( Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Clarification on MOS:IDENTITY proposal ). We are discussing having a proposal on the Village Pump, and we've run into an issue concerning "canvassing." There was a very similar RfC not long ago, and those editors demonstrated a clear preference for one opinion. Some of the editors in the current discussion want to notify all the editors who participated in that past RfC of the new Village Pump proposal. The question is:  Would notifying those editors constitute "canvassing" since, even though some of those editors held the opposing view, the editors as a group are indeed known to have a clear preference on the subject. It seems to me that this action would certainly result in stacking the deck in favor of one side of the issue. What would be the Wikipedia-correct thing to do?
Richard27182 (talk) 08:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Richard27182. Notifying every editor who participated in a previous discussion cannot be construed as Canvassing. That guideline includes in the "appropriate notifications" section "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)" and goes on to say "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. Do not send notices to too many users, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them." So sending messages to everyone who previously participated is acceptable, but sending it to all who supported a proposal, but only half of those who opposed (or the othe way about) would not be acceptable. If the previous discussion was large, and people feel that notifying everyone would run afoul of the "too many" clause above, then a random selection from the total list would be acceptable, say every third or every tenth editor from the list of those who commented would be acceptable. This has to be done carefully so that editors who comment multiple times in a discussion do not have a greater chance of being notified -- first a list of editors, not comments must be generated, and then random on otherwise unbiased selections made from that.

Moreover, a discussion of the Village Pump is considered to be widely advertised in and of itself. Many editors have the pump watchlisted. And this is a much-watched topic. So possible canvassing would need to be large indeed to have much actual effect.

Thanks for asking advice, however. DES ^(talk) 13:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.
Richard27182 (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Hello there DESiegel,

I'm a new member and I've recently starting doing some phpwiki editing. I'd appreciate some assistance with a dilemma I've been having.

As for the backstory, I'm working as a moderator for an online text game, and my primary role is to update the Wiki, which is the subject of my dilemma. The page I'm currently working on (which you'll find below) is a simple alphabetical list category page, with essentially nothing on it; rather, other pages have tags that revert to the 'category page' and thus they appear on the list in supposed alphabetical order. The tag I use is as follows:

[[[Category:Units (Lightning)|{{PAGE NAME}}]] (minus one bracket at the beginning and the space between PageName as I had to add one to make it appear here correctly)

The above tag goes on other 'unit' pages, and the title of those unit pages appear on the list I'm working on. So, backstory over. Now begins the problem.

There are unit titles appearing on the list that I don't want to appear. So, naturally, I went into those unit pages, and deleted the tag from the page. Problem solved, right? No. Instead of disappearing off the list like they were supposed to, they moved from their appropriate spot alphabetically and appeared in the MIDDLE of the list for no apparent reason. After checking (and re-checking) the unit pages for ANY TAGS whatsoever, I could find no explanation for why they are appearing on my list. You'll notice, on the list itself, that 'Assassin' and 'Minor Elemental' appear out-of-order. Those are the titles I attempted to delete. And, because the list itself has...essentially nothing on it to delete, I can't simply edit the list and delete it. This is my problem.

I've tried deleting the unit pages, and they still appear on the list. When I re-add the tag found above, they resume existing on the list in their CORRECT alphabetical spot, but other than that, there is literally no way I've found to remove them from this list. I tried clearing the cache with ?action=purge, but this hasn't worked as far as I can readily ascertain. I was told the cache is filled with old data, and this is why this problem is occurring, but outside of trying the purge, I received no suggestions from the person who told me that.

I would appreciate all the help I can get. The link is below. I noticed you helping some other people, and that you were very experienced with Wiki, so I figured I'd give it a shot. I understand if it takes awhile, I'm sure you're very busy, but any help you can lend me would be beneficial I'm sure. If you could please respond back here, that'd be great, as I'm not overly experienced with the messaging function on here. Thank you so much in advance.

http://wiki.the-reincarnation.org/index.php/Category:Units_%28Lightning%29

Zero275 (talk) 06:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Zero275

Zero275 At first I thought that your Template:Navigation included [[:category:Units|Units]], thus when it is transcluded onto the page (through another template, at least in the case of [[Template:Minor Elemental]]) it puts the page into the units category, but with the sort key "Units".

But then I saw this category link had a leading : so it won;t put the pagfe in that category, merely link to it. I now suspect it is a caching issue, and you will need to make a small or dummy edit to the pages in question to make the category reset. I can't t4ry that since I don't have an account on wiki.the-reincarnation.org (nor do i intend to set one up). If that isn't the answer, then I'm afraid ZI don't know.

By the way, you can post wiki code inside a nowiki tag to display it without activating it. I hope this helps. DES ^(talk) 14:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

musescore.com Counts

Musescore.com counts ALL views of the Anasazi opera files. The figures ARE displayed for each file. I think Wikipedia is like a Walmart hourly job- you may be terminated for ANY reason or NO reason! Lorzendel2 Lorzendel2 (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC) 184.167.180.144 (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorzendel2 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, i will remove the birthdate and "analysis" of the opera. However, as i said previously, you are mistaken about the thousands of people on line thing. For example, please see Anasazi Act II pg 96 file just as one example. Preseent count of views is 2,160 as noted by musescore.comhttps://musescore.com/sheetmusic?text=amasazi+hudson+act+II+pg96 Lorzendel2 (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

On further reflection, I feel that at least some of what you call opinion and analysis of The Anasazi, are really plain statements, or information, about the libretto of the opera, such as the Two Kachinas, who are two characters in the drama. Perhaps removing "transcendental in nature" should at least be removed? That would be OK. However,I feel that the article is simply stating facts about the story line, just as if one saw a blue car one would state that it WAS A BLUE CAR. One would not need a "critical" outside source to tell if the car were blue or not, unless one were color blind by some chance.

Also, if one of the news references applies to more than one statement in the article, should that reference be repeated after each such statement?  Thank You, Del Lorzendel2 (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Walmartpedia

As I said before, Wikipedia is similar to having a Walmart hourly job--one can be terminated for ANY or NO reason, depending on on the bias of various editors. One gets bandied by various editors, many of them intransigent. Example: you did not admit your error on musescore.com count of views. So goodbye, Walmartpedia, I quit. Lorzendel2 Lorzendel2 (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vanessa Bley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Producer. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Unreferenced articles

Hi. I saw a template tagging articles or section which have no reference. Is there any reason to keep an article with no reference? e.g. Dartmoor wildlife, Transport in Dominica, Baseball positions, Bromeliales, File archiver (proposed to merge), Transport in Brunei and Politics of Burkina Faso. Some of them have been created and tagged a long time ago, but no ref exists yet. Another question is about referencing disambiguation pages, is it necessary? (Battle of El Alamein for example, tagged recently.) Thanks. Mahdy Saffar (talk) 07:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Mahdy Saffar. Yes there are reasons, IMO good reasons, for keeping unreferenced articles. See WP:PRESERVE. It often happens that someone will come along and be able to add sources to, and expand, an unreferenced article, turning into a fully compliant article that is well worth having, which might well not have happened had the article been deleted. Only in the case of WP:BLP articles do we delete unreferenced articles promptly just for being unreferenced and even WP:BLPPROD allows a 7-day grace period, and demands only a single cited source, not full sourcing. While you could take any of these to Articles for deletion, note that WP:BEFORE says that you should yourself search for sources and add any good ones you find before making such a nomination. Indeed you can do that for any of the above articles or any other unsourced or undersourced article. That would actually help the encyclopedia. DES ^(talk) 15:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok. But You will wait for a ref fourteen years? (e.g. 1 and 2) I can add ref for some, but not all! Maybe PROD is a better idae! Mahdy Saffar (talk) 07:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

As for Battle of El Alamein, that is an odd case. Normally a disambiguation page does not need, and indeed should not have, cited sources (See WP:DAB). But that page is not labelled as a disambiguation page and has a little more information than such a page usually has. I'm not sure what should be done about it. DES ^(talk) 15:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done :) Mahdy Saffar (talk) 07:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Hi please can you help settle this once and for all, maybe I upgraded it too soon but now the page is potentially being damaged by spammers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joshua_Ferdinand Thank you so much for all of your support. Pippathecat (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Pippathecat Adding tags to an article, such as {{db-a7}} and {{COI}} is not vandalism, even if it is a mistake. The A& speedy tag was not appropriate in my view, but the COI was at least arguable, so i have replaced it. Also it is not uncommon for people to edit an article, say to remove unreliable sources, but still argue for removal. DES ^(talk) 15:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 12 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Draft:Francis Cauffman page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Hello,thank you for all your supports, my name is Tugioto alias Tugioto Hartono Email:

1. logos@tugioto.com (owner)
2. tugioto@gmail.com

Public Domain:tugioto.com I hope I can be better in the future.

Please help me if there is a problem with my IP historical owner in my domain (tugioto.com) Since I start project at Google, I haven't get paid, I am frustrated, then I went back to Wikipedia, hoping to find a solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.121.131.139 (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I don't understand what your problem is, or how I could help. Please leave a more detailed and clear message here if you want my assistance. Also consider asking at the Teahouse. If this is a problem with editing Wikipedia, what pages are involved? the IP 114.121.131.139|114.121.131.139 has only made one edit, the post above, but many ISPs assign IP addresses dynamically, so you might well have had a different address. I urge you to read Wikipedia:Why create an account? and consider registering for a free account. If you do, you will have a consistent username where all your edits are recorded, and a place for users to get in touch with you. I don't normally respond to on-wiki messages by email, but I am going to make an exception in your case. DES ^(talk) 12:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

draft Krov Menuhin

Hi DES, is this the best way to contact you? You were kind enough to look at my draft article on Krov Menuhin. I have spent a great deal of tme checking out citations, as advised. Is it possible you could look over it when time and let me know what more you think needs doing? Sorry if this is onerous but I am trying to get it right!KarenMenuhin (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, KarenMenuhin, this is the right way to reach me. I will try to look over the draft as soon as i can. DES ^(talk) 13:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Gosh, you are quick! no rush and much thanks.KarenMenuhin (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

KarenMenuhin I happened to be online. When i am and I see the orange bar that indicates a new message on my user page I often check it out as my next edit. DES ^(talk) 13:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

DES I just happened to take a look at your talk page and whoa! You've got a few tidbits here. And keep the good work coming. Luck! FindMeLost (talk) 07:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

A non urgent question

Hi DESiegel.  This is not at all urgent. But whenever you get the chance, please check *this* and let me know what you think. Am I missing something or ignorant of something I should know? Or would it be OK for me to add that information to the article?
Richard27182 (talk) 08:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Berney baronets

Please check my latest edit on the above page and thanks for your help so far M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.189.13.6 (talk) 10:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Another question/concern

Hi DESiegel.  I'm a little worried about something that happened last night. I was adding something to a Village Pump section (in the miscellaneous category, the section about turning red links pink) and I accidentally ended up deleting the whole section! I spent several minutes trying to restore it and I think I finally succeeded; and I believe I did so without removing anything posted later. (I described what I did in the edit summaries.) My question is this: could this possibly get me into trouble; or is Wikipedia relatively forgiving toward editors who accidentally damage a page or article, as long as they successfully (hopefully) undo their damage, and explain in edit summaries? Thanks.
Richard27182 (talk) 09:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Richard27182, often the best way it to simply revert to the last version of the page before your last edit, or to the last known good state. You can do this by clicking on the history tab. There may be an "undo" link for the edits you wish to revert, if there is not, click on the revision you want to return to, and edit it -- an edit with no effect such as adding a space will do. Save that edit, and you have reverted.

As long as you clearly acted in good faith, and explained what happened and what you were trying to do, you shouldn't get in trouble here. DES ^(talk) 14:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Morisco rebellions

Thank you for your comments on "Morisco rebellions ...". I have responded to these and other comments on "Talk:Morisco rebellions in Granada", as you suggested. Bergerie (talk) 10:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again for further guidance. I have adjusted the "Sources" to remove references to the Spanish Wikipedia. Bergerie (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Since our previous contacts, I have been working on this article and I think I have dealt with the three issues:

1. "The neutrality of this article is disputed." I have rewritten or deleted any comment which might have reflected a personal view. This includes the Bibliography.

2. "This article needs additional citations for verification."' I have now provided a reference for every important statement, and have extended the Bibliography accordingly.

3. "This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia." Again, I have rewritten any passage which might be in question.

Might I ask you to look at the result? If anything else needs to be adjusted, let me know and I shall deal with it. I hope however that the article could now be upgraded.

As regards the title: there has been some discussion, not very conclusive. The keywords which must appear are "Moriscos" and "Granada". These would be clarified by

"Rebellions of the Moors ("Moriscos") in the Kingdom of Granada".

But if you still feel this is too long, we can leave out "Kingdom of". I have tried to make the introduction as clear as possible, though someone keeps making unhelpful additions.

I shall be glad to hear from you. Bergerie (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Help with Sci Fi

Hi, im new to the editing community and thought you might be able to help me. I'm a big literature fan, and have an interest in old scifi pulp. I wrote an article to expand a stub for Avram Davidson's What Strange Stars and Skies. It was edited a bit and then apparently deleted or absorbed into the main page. the user who did this left me a message saying it wasn't notable enough for it's own page. But under notability in books it says historically notable authors can have enough notability to have all there books receive there own articles. this is where im confused. Avram Davidson won a hugo, an edgar, and Three world fantasy awards as well as having his last piece, finished after his death, nominated for a nebula. he is widely lauded as a master of the craft.

I also hoped I could expand a stub or two for CL Moore. But she was a woman writing in an age that didn't treat female author's as seriously. she was the first Grand Master of the Science Fiction Writer's Guild, but won no contemporary awards. but if notoriety for books is decided by awards won and articles written about the book on it's publication, what about female authors who, do to bigotry in there time, got more acclaim in retrospect? If Davidson's books get there pages deleted, how can a female author from the 50's ever be notable? There a lot of significant sci fi authors that deserve to have there work remembered. My library can help. If you could give me some guidelines on whose is important enough to have all there work preserved, I would really appreciate it.

I understand I'm new, I don't mind if anything I write is edited without mercy, but these authors deserve better then a red link. I found you on the sci fi project and with 10 years of wiki(ing?) behind you I figured you might have the awnsers. Regards, and thank you much Dillon Kreiser 15:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Dillon Kreiser 15:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Class editing project

You were kind enough to respond to a previous post about having my Writing for Electronic Media students fill in some stubs on Wiki.

Yes, I know they would love it if you were willing to be a go-to person.

These are not ambitious or long entries. There are six students and five of these subjects are existing stubs; one should be, I think.

John Kidwell, credited with the introduction of the pineapple industry to Hawaii.

Count Me In Acoustic (2015), most recent album from Rebelution.

Sheikh Omar, the legendary discoverer of coffee.

Congenital leptin deficiency, nutritional issue just getting traction.

Big Kettle Mountain near Penn State.

At the end of The Lion King, a cub is held up. Much has been written about this cub, but none appears in Wiki.

Thank you for your consideration.

God bless, Ian Punnett

Ipunnett (talk) 05:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

hello again, Ipunnett. I would be happy to be the go-to person for such a project. Expanding a stub would surely be easier than creating an article from scratch. I can't promise better than 24 hour response time, depending on my schedule.

I stongly urge you to

1. set up a class page, perhaps at User:Ipunnett/class2015. put on it a set of links that students would be expected to follow and read; (you might wish to quiz them on this content or some of it)
2. have all students create accounts if they do not already have Wikipedia accounts
3. List the students' user names on the class page, and let me know when this has been done so that I can welcome them

List with links the articles to be worked on for the class on the class page

I hope this will be helpful DES ^(talk) 18:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, when starting a new topic on a talk page, start it in a new section with a useful section header, please. DES ^(talk) 18:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

A quick Village Pump question

Hi DESiegel.  I know it's OK to (neutrally) promote or advertise RfC's in the Village Pump miscellaneous section. Can I also (neutrally) publicize ordinary discussions on article talk pages there? Thanks.
Richard27182 (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teahouse Barnstar
	You continue to be one of the best and most prolific contributors regularly answering queries at the Teahouse, and that deserves recognition. GrammarFascist contribstalk 22:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Also — and feel free to delete this part if you don't want it on your talk page — your profile photo is adorable. In a good way, not incompatible with masculinity. I've always thought so, but I hadn't wanted to say so soon after asking you a favor, to avoid it looking like I might just be buttering you up. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 22:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I like it myself, GrammarFascist. It was taken by a professional photographer, and we did everything honestly possible to make me look dignified and impressive, it was the publicity shot for a local political campaign, used on flyers and posters and the like. It is also, to be honest, now roughly 10 years old, and the core of black in the goatee is largely gone, and I'm not always that well-combed. Still, if you met me, you would recognize the photo I think. (I use the same photo on my LinkedIn page.)

And thanks for the Barnstar, I am glad to know others think what i do here is worthwhile. DES ^(talk) 23:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I might not recognize you in a chance encounter, actually; I have prosopagnosia, and encountering people outside the context I know them from is one of the situations I have the hardest time recognizing people in. Then again, your hair and beard are distinctive, and those are features that I tend to use to identify people (which makes it difficult for me when someone changes their hairstyle). And if I was expecting to meet you I'd probably know who you were.

I hope you enjoyed the experience of running for office, whether or not you won. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 21:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Right of reply

Hey DES -

I just amended my statement to include this, but there's some cross-cultural weirdness going on since WMF is headquartered in California, and California both makes it incredibly hard to prove defamation if you're at least a limited purpose public figure (which for this purpose, Eric is,) the US in general doesn't recognize defamation decisions made in countries (even those we have close relationships with, like the UK,) where defamation laws differ substantially from our own, the US doesn't recognize a legal right of reply in the way some countries do, and the WMF itself would be exempt from any direct liability because of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The digital media law project has a decent overview of most US state laws related to defamation etc, but they differ really substantially from laws in many other countries. (I know that pointing out that US law shields a lot of the points being brought up will not lessen the complaints about American imperialism, haha, but this relates to a separate non-Wikimedia issue I've been dealing with irl.)

Assuming this doesn't result in a significant result, I would encourage you to actively engage in future enforcement of arb remedies towards Eric. Kirill was not kidding in saying that most of the uninvolved admin corps is unwilling to touch anything to do with Eric because of the reaction it provokes. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Kevin Gorman, The US does, in some circumstances, at least, recognize a right of reply in libel actions. It may be that only individual posters would be liable, rather than the WMF, and I wasn't fully aware of the extent to which the earlier doctrine that editorial control imposed liability had been reversed. In any event I feel that in this instance Eric had a moral right of response whether he had a legal one or not, and I think the block was seriously bad, and should be reversed as a matter of principal, even if it had expired.

I have never engaged in any significant amount of AE enforcement, and i don't plan to start. If I did, i certainly wouldn't stalk a particular editor, looking for violations. However, if anyone brought such a situation to my attention, I would apply the policies as seemed appropriate, and would not hesitate to block Eric, or anyone else, should I be convinced that a block was warranted under Wikipedia policies, and that it was appropriate in the particular case at hand. DES ^(talk) 04:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Not that I'm doubting you, mostly just curious, but in what situations does the US recognize a right of reply in libel actions? I'm aware that having provided a right of reply can be a partial defense to libel in some circumstances, but (outside of maybe Louisiania? Louisiani civil law is really unusual,) I wasn't aware of any remaining US mandated right to reply. We used to have it for print media, but SCOTUS overturned it in the 70's, and we used to (kind of) have it in broadcast media until around 2000, but I wasn't aware of any remaining situations where we had it. FWIW, I don't disagree with the idea of the idea of a limited right of reply even being enforced on Wikipedia, although we've not had anything of the sort previously - something like one dedicated section on Eric's talk page where he can reply ignoring most of the existing remedies against him (except for personally attacking other people, etc,) - and many US media outlets still offer what amounts to a limited right of reply, but it's at their discretion alone (and usually consists of either a linked statement on a group's/person's website, or a couple paragraph post-publiction note at the end.) BTW, I don't know what bits you're thinking of, but nothing in the Atlantic article would be libelous under California's laws, nor would most comments I've seen on-wiki. Besides California putting the burden of proof on the plaintiff when they're a limited purpose public figure, truth, opinion, and obviously exaggerated statements are all defenses to defamation - if I were in a similar situation, statements like "Kevin Gorman is a misogynist," "Kevin Gorman has done more damage to Wikipedia than any editor in history," and "Kevin Gorman is a Russian mole whose sole purpose is to subvert the contents of Wikipedia in favor of Mother Russia" would all be non-defamatory, although they'd also all be false.

The thing about Eric is that there's only a few admin standpoints about him for the most part: those that support his behavior and dislike most/all of the remedies in place against him, those that are already involved (and thus can't take action against him,) those that are uninvolved and unhappy with his behavior but unwilling to take the massive flaming that comes with blocking him, and those that are uninvolved and not familiar enough with his behavior one way or another to have a firm opinion on it. (With Kirill representing an unusual exception; someone uninvolved, familiar with his behavior, and wiling to take the heat that comes with blocking him.) The problem that I (and many others, including, I'm assuming Kirill) see with his behavior isn't in the individual incident, but in the aggregate. I haven't stalked Eric's behavior, but (as I mentioned in Danielle Citron's keynote at wikiconf USA) frequently receive twenty emails a week from women Wikipedians uncertain about how to handle an on-wiki situation - and at least in some weeks, those emails involve Eric violating prior arb remedies. Each of his violations is, in and of itself, relatively minor (at least as of late,) but when you have someone committing 10-15 violations in some weeks of his previous arb remedies, the aggregate problem is bigger. I haven't asked him, but I assumed that when Kirill blocked Eric, he did so not exclusively for the direct violation he cited, but kept his previous violations in mind (and Kirill didn't block him for replying to the article, but only when he crossed what arbcom has drawn as a redline for Eric.)

AE as a board is dysfunctional when it comes to Eric - the only real way to take action is either through an arbcom case or to take action in the style Kirill did. The people who have pointed out past violations on Eric's part to me have by and large been unwilling to go to ae/arca/arbcom because of both the heat that actioning Eric in any way puts on you combined with arbcom's reputation for how they handle cases. I don't want to quote the arbitrator, but when trying to figure out how to approach the situation in the recent past was warned by a member of arbcom not to either bring a direct arbcom case or go the route of ae->arca because "... we'll probably just end up banning you, because it's easier than figuring out the situation." Any one violation by itself will tend to look minor, and any pattern of violations will tend to only be noticed by either having people send them to you (which is the role I've accidentally assumed,) or by looking through someone's edit history (which is permissible when done by someone uninvolved with the purpose of looking for policy violations.)

I'm hoping something useful comes out of the current situation to resolve the status quo. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• Because of enforced word limits, I can't reply to you at arb, but I will say that I'm positive Kirill consulted a significant portion of the uninvolved admin corps - which doesn't necessarily mean all uninvolved admins. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
• Kevin Gorman I have no evidence other than the fact I was not among that portion, if so, and that no one else who made a statement reports being so consulted. There are currently about 330 active admins, I believe (out of about 1300 with the bit -- stats from recent discussions at the RfA talk page). How many of those 300 could be considered "uninvolved" I have no idea, but surely far from all of them. I wonder how many "a significant portion of the uninvolved admin corps" actually amounts to. I hope details and support will be provided during the evidence phase. I would think that "a significant portion" ought to mean no less than a third, say 50 users if half of the active admins are considered involved. I would really be surprised if Kirill had time to consult nearly that many people, nor do I think anyone would have expected him to. Therefore this seems like an extraordinary claim to me, requiring extraordinary support (if it matters enough to make in the first place). DES ^(talk) 00:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

1945 Anti-Jewish riots in Tripolitania

I'm not sure what you were trying to do on some of your changes. I think I fixed one, but other problems arise. For example you have a quote ...the Soviet Union."}}, but no ref. That is also some broken brackets. Bgwhite (talk) 06:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Bgwhite, I didn't add any quote, or remove any reference. In fact I didn't change any article text at all, only markup. I was converting those uses of {[tl|sfn}} which mis-use the PS parameter to put a quote in the cite to use {{harvnb}} instead. See [[WP:VPT#Usage of ps= in {{sfn}}]] and Template talk:sfn#Interaction with new cite error detection for more details. I did apparently introduce an extra </ref> by mistake and you seem to have fixed that. Thank you. DES ^(talk) 12:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Eugenio B. Bito-onon Jr.

Hi, I've fixed the references in Draft:Eugenio B. Bito-onon Jr. as much as possible. However, some of the references don't have all of the information. Let me know if there's anything else that needs to be done. Thanks!Fraenir (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Michael Ann Young, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Independent Film Channel and Wedekind. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done fixed. DES ^(talk) 10:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thanks for your help: really appreciate the professionalism and conscientiousness. Fraenir (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors retitled Arbitration enforcement 2

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

thank you again always

for your expertise and help here. it is so appreciated. Paulhus15 (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	thanks always for your amazing input and technical knowledge here Mr Siegel. you are fantastic. I hope all is well with you, mary Paulhus15 (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Picki u dusa listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Picki u dusa. Since you had some involvement with the Picki u dusa redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Place Clichy (talk) 10:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

RfD created at your request. That way, we will see if calling an entire nation pussies and tramps is offensive, or useful to the encyclopaedia. Thank you for your input. Place Clichy (talk) 10:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform

DES, I have always been impressed by your work on Wikipedia, and for whatever reason while researching something I came across your username again. I noticed the link you placed regarding Wikipedia:Process is important and fully agree with you there. As you're probably aware there is another RFC going on about RFA Reform -- perhaps I'm just an optimistic guy, but I am hopeful to see some actual reform come. I believe in process and that an important process is one of constant self-evaluation and improvement. Perhaps you can spare a couple of minutes, or hour, and head over and share your insight with everyone... Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform Much appreciated. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

John Kidwell

Hello David Siegel,

I am Taylor McPhillips and I am one of Ian Punnett's students. I will be doing a wikipage for John Kidwell. I wanted to get in contact with you to help me along the way.

Thank you, Taylor McPhillips — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trmcp (talk • contribs) 19:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Taylor McPhillips, and welcome to Wikipedia. I will be happy to answer any questions that I can. Have you read the pages that are linked on the User:Ipunnett/class2015 page, in the User:Ipunnett/class2015#Comments and advice section? If not, i strongly urge you to do so promptly. You may have some questions after reading them. If you do, feel free to ask here. Another source of advice is the Teahouse, at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions. DES ^(talk) 23:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Martineau family

Please check ref. 6 and all refs - are they OK Srbernadette (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC) Thanks so much again

Comm 254 Benedictine Univ. In Class Assignment

DESiegel:

Hi my name is Linaloe Ximena and I am one of Ian Punnett's students. The topic I am writing about is about Sheikh O'mar ( the contributor or inventor of coffee). I am having a hard time just finding background information on Wiki about anything that connects to him. If there are any other sources you might possibly know of in which I could find out more about him i would greatly appreciate it. Also, this is my first time using Wikipedia, so I am also having a hard time trying to figure out the structure and all of the Wiki pages have been a little too confusing to fully understand.

Thank you so much for your time to help us all!

Linaloe ximena (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Linaloe Ximena, and welcome to Wikipedia. I will be happy to answer any questions that I can. Have you read the pages that are linked on the User:Ipunnett/class2015 page, in the User:Ipunnett/class2015#Comments and advice section? If not, I strongly urge you to do so promptly. You may have some questions after reading them. If you do, feel free to ask here. Another source of advice is the Teahouse, at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions.

I have to admit that I don't know anything about Sheikh O'mar, beyond what is said in Wikipedia's article Coffee, which suggests that his very existence is not well attested, since it lists him under "Legendary accounts". It also givens his name with the spelling "Omar" , but that may be a transliteration or an Anglicization. You might try the sources listed there: Ukers, William (1935) All About Coffee, and Souza, Ricardo M (2008) Plant-Parasitic Nematodes of Coffee. But if you have access to a good university Library, you might look up "History of Coffee" there, just as if you were doing an ordinary research paper on it, and see what sources you can find. There is no need for sources cited in a Wikipedia article to be already listed on Wikipedia, or indeed to be online. Once you have a source, I can help you format it for use in an article. most probably you would use {{cite book}} or {{cite journal}}, but other methods are acceptable. I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk) 23:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

John Kidwell again

Hello David Siegel,

I am Taylor McPhillips and I am one of Ian Punnett's students. I will be doing a wikipage for John Kidwell. I wanted to get in contact with you to help me along the way.

Thank you, Taylor McPhillipsTrmcp (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC) Hello, Trmcp. I responded to you in the #John Kidwell section above. DES ^(talk) 23:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Article

Hello,

My name is Amanda Johnson and I am a student in Ian Punnett's Communications class at Benedictine University. I am writing to let you know know about my assignment of writing a Wikipedia page on Congenital Lepton Deficiency. I would love your approval on the topic and any feedback you can give me. Please feel free to to respond to this email or my alternate email: theamandajohnson@yahoo.com

Thank you, I look forward to hearing from you.

Amanda Johnson Amandajohnson0 (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Amanda Johnson, and welcome to Wikipedia. I will be happy to answer any questions that I can. Have you read the pages that are linked on the User:Ipunnett/class2015 page, in the User:Ipunnett/class2015#Comments and advice section? If not, I strongly urge you to do so promptly. You may have some questions after reading them. If you do, feel free to ask here. Another source of advice is the Teahouse, at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions.

I understood from the class page that you were undertaking to tackle Congenital leptin deficiency. Because this is considered a medic topic, stricter sourcing guidelines apply than for most other topics. See our medical sourcing page. That guideline generally favors the use of: "review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies", not accounts in the popular press, outdated medical works, or textbooks, which are generally tertiary sources. This means that writing such an article will be significantly harder than an article on a non-medical topic, unless you are already conversant with the process of doing research in professional-level medical journals and books. You might want to consider changing to a non-medical topic, unless you feel well able to handle these additional requirements.

If is possible to set your Wikipedia account to send you an email on any of several events. These can be configured on the Special:Preferences page, also accessible from the Preferences menu shown at the top of every Wikipedia page when the user is logged-in. I hope this is helpful.Please feel free to respond here with any further questions. DES ^(talk) 23:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

COM 254 Final Assignment

Hi there,

My name is Olivia Ortiz and I am a student in Ian Punnett's class at Benedictine University. I am writing to let you know about my assignment in which I will be creating a Wiki page about Big Kettle Mountain. Any approval on my topic and any feedback you can give me would be appreciated. Feel free to to respond to this or my primary email. olivia.ortiz878@gmail.com

Thank you

Olivia Ortiz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliviaroseortiz87 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Olivia Ortiz, and welcome to Wikipedia. I will be happy to answer any questions that I can. Have you read the pages that are linked on the User:Ipunnett/class2015 page, in the User:Ipunnett/class2015#Comments and advice section? If not, I strongly urge you to do so promptly. You may have some questions after reading them. If you do, feel free to ask here. Another source of advice is the Teahouse, at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions.

The topic seems reasonable, provided that you can find several reliable sources that discuss the subject is some detail. I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk) 00:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Vesuvius Dogg and Montanabw posting AN/I notice on article talk page

Montanabw posted an AN/I notice (about me) on the talk page of an article, American Pharoah, in an attempt to embarrass me. I removed it and then Vesuvius Dogg immediately restored it. I removed it again and said in my edit summary explained that AN/I notices do get posted on article talk pages, and that I would report it if it's restored again. A few minutes later, Vesuvius Dogg restored it for a second time. Can you please instruct them not to restore it again? Czoal (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The notice is relevant, as that discussion appears to be what set off the relevant chain of events described [: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Czoal_and_WP:Personal_attacks here]. No attempt to embarass Czoal, merely informing other parties that the situation had escalated. Montanabw^(talk) 06:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Montanbw has just restored it again. Czoal (talk) 06:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Even if it were conceded that the link was improper, repeatedly reverting it is edit warring, and now seems to be a WP:3RR violation. You have reported the matter to an admin, and commented on ANI, don't continue to revert-war or you will only get yourself blocked. DES ^(talk) 07:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse: Wikimedia deleted my file.

Hi DES. I saw your reply to WP:Teahouse/Questions#Wikimedia deleted my file. and just want to let you know that In a Minute Records which you deleted has been recreated. I can't see the version, you deleted so I'm not sure if this is simply the same stuff you deleted as a copyvio or is new re-written content. Either way, the company does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG, so I think this is a candidate for AfD if it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out, Marchjuly. As it happens, this version, while generally similar in content, has been re-written so that it isn't a copyvio. However, it still lacks sufficient reliable sources, and i have tagged it to indicate this. Note that, if you were thinking of nominating it for AfD, you are required to first try to find sources yourself, as specified in WP:BEFORE. Sources may well be out there for this. I would give the creator a few days to add proper sources -- hter is no rush here, and remember WP:BITE.

FYI, if you want to check for copyvios yourself in future, the tool I most often use can be found at https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/ and anyone may use it. DES ^(talk) 02:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for re-checking the copyvio. FWIW, I am aware of both "BEFORE" and "BITE"; I was just sort of "thinking" out loud and would't have gone to AfD would out following proper procedure first. I did consider tagging the article with cleanup templates, but just wanted to clarify the possible copyvio first. I wasn't aware of the the copyvio tool though, so I will check it out per your suggestion. Thanks again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Creating a Rebelution Count Me In Page COM 254 Final Assignment

Hello, my name is Justin and I would like to become a page creator for Wikipedia. There is one page I am very interested in creating and currently does not exist. A band called Rebelution has an acoustic album called Count Me In Acoustic that currently does not exist on Wikipedia; I would like to create it.

This is my final project for a class so I would love to get feedback and advice on how to create a wiki.

I hope to hear from you soon. Thank you so much.

Here is the URL for the wiki I would like to add onto:

     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebelution_(band) 

B2292295 (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hello, B2292295, and welcome to Wikipedia. (I'm helping DES out by answering for him.) The most important consideration when creating a new Wikipedia article (not "page") is whether the subject of the proposed article is notable by Wikipedia's definition of notability. Generally, this means that the subject has to have been written about by reliable sources (such as newspapers or magazines) that have devoted significant coverage (more than a couple of sentences) to the subject and that are independent of the subject (not the band's website, a press release from their label, or an interview with the band). There are also specific music-related notability guidelines, but meeting the general guideline is the best way to ensure an article won't be deleted after you create it. Can you find at least three sources you could use to meet that standard for an article about the album? —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 22:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Could you check the deletion history of Kevin Healey (autism activist) and Kevin Healey?

A claim has been made that Kevin Healey (autism activist) has been on Wikipedia for years, but the history I can see only goes back to August of last year. (The other title because there might have been a deleted page about the activist before the article about the soccer coach came along.) No rush. Thanks in advance, GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 22:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, it turns out that the claim that a claim was made was itself only a claim, and nobody had actually said the article had a longer history than to 2014. This whole circus is making my head throb. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 17:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

article on Richard Gisser (demographer)

Hi, I was about to continue our discussion on the talk page but that seemed a bit indiscrete to me, so I am taking it here although I am not entirely sure about conventions in this case:

Meanwhile I made some additions, but in general I am questioning your main point of contention, i.e. that staff pages and lists of employees/board members of organisations are "non-independent sources"---this may be correct if we are dealing with commercial enterprises but academic institutions should be expected not to boast (or even lie) when giving an overview of their staff members.

May I add my own view of the "current sources used"?

* http://www.oeaw.ac.at/vid/staff/staff_richard_gisser.shtml

Non-Independent source, does not help establish notability

maybe not independent but trustworthy, and lists the gist of RG's biography

* http://www.osg.or.at/main.asp?VID=&kat1=11&kat2=331&kat3=

Non-Independent source, and only a passing mention there; does not help establish notability

again, an official (not commercial) site, confirming my statement (that RG is still active there)

* http://derstandard.at/840627/Demographie-im-Aufwind

Passing mention, does not help establish notability

independent news article, confirms what I cite it for

• http://www.oeaw.ac.at/wic/index.php?id=58

Non-Independent source, does not help establish notability

academic staff page, confirms statement (VID became partner of Wittgenstein Centre, and RG works as a researcher there as well)

• http://www.oeaw.ac.at/wic/index.php?id=2/

Non-Independent source, no actual mention of Gisser; does not help establish notability

was not meant to be about RG himself but about the research project

• https://www.czso.cz/csu/czso/redakcni_rada_demografie

Non-Independent source, and only a passing mention there; does not help establish notability

again, an academic site listing the members of the editorial board (confirming precisely my statement)

• http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf96316/contacts.htm

Directory entry, possibly a non-Independent source, but in any case does not help establish notability

• http://cas.umn.edu/assets/pdf/ASNWIN03.PDF

Only mention of Gisser is in a photo caption; does not help establish notability

• http://www.share-project.org/uploads/tx_sharepublications/SHARE_BOOK_METHODOLOGY_Wave1.pdf

Only mention of Gisser is in a list of Team members; does not help establish notability

all three were intended as examples for the cited research collaborations, I agree that the third one might as well be omitted

I added a source here, a book on "People, Demography and Social Exclusion" (https://books.google.at/books?isbn=9287150958) where RG both wrote an extensive foreword and is acknowledged in the preface:* http://www.aeiou.at/aeiou.encyclop.g/g420308.htm

Tertiary source, directory entry; does not help establish notability

this is of course a compendium but at least one of notable Austrians, and it confirms what the article says (invited expert)

* http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/2/178

Only mention of Gissere is in a list of members of the project; does not help establish notability

no big deal, I agree, but again confirmation of what I wrote

* http://www.demographic-research.org/authors/1126.htm

list of publications by Gisser, but nothing about Gisser; does not help establish notability

correct but that's what it is there to confirm: RG published in relevant journals

Added another source here: http://noe.familienpass.at/files_cms/pdf/meineFamily/2004/MF_2_2004.pdf (report on a symposion about childbearing intentions, as a confirmation for the sentence)

* http://www.demographie-online.de/index.php?id=218

Notes that Gissig served as session chair at a conference, but says nothing about him at all; does not help establish notability

I agree, this one could just as well go

... but the majority of my sources are IMHO adequate insofar as they give evidence of what the article says, and notability is also established by Criterion 6 of the Specific Criteria Notes, "the person has held the post of [...] director of a highly regarded, notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university)"--RG was director of the Vienna Institute of Demography for more than a dozen years (no Wikipedia entry, I know)

Thanks for any feedback! --WernR (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

WernR, I don't see why it would be "indiscrete" to have this discussion on the article talk page, indeed this sort of thing is precisely what article talk pages are for. It should not be between just the two of us as if we owned the article. I expressed views in an earlier discussion, but I have no veto authority. I will probably copy the above section to the article talk page later today, and then start to respond substantively. In the mean time, please read Wikipedia:Independent sources, where you will see that an employer (and therefore a site maintained by an employer) is generally not considered independent of the employee. I have seen this principle applied to academics and the institutions that they are affiliated with many times. DES ^(talk) 17:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, any new opinions on the Richard Gisser article? I added the JStor content to the Talk page as you requested, and in the meantime an article has been created on the Vienna Institute of Demography which RG was heading for quite some time (and where he is still active as a researcher and deputy director), so relevance/notability might be more clear now (on both counts). Best regards --WernR (talk) 10:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Questions about creating/using/deleting new pages

Hi DESiegel. I have three important (and related) questions:

• Is it permissible to create a new page such as User:Richard27182/temppage for the purpose of working (alone or with another editor) on making changes to the contents of an existing article?   and if so
• Will it be possible to later completely delete the page (or have it deleted) (as opposed to just blanking it out but still having it exist)?   and if so
• Would I be able to, at some future date, create the same page again with the same name?

Thank you for your help and advice!
Richard27182 (talk) 11:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Richard27182, yes all three of those are possible and permitted. You may create a page in your userspace with just about any name you choose (with the possible exception of blatantly obscene names and names obviously constituting personal attacks). Using such a page to work on possible improvements to an existing article is one of the classic uses for userspace, and is perfectly appropriate. The page could later be deleted under WP:CSD#G7 if you are the only editor, or under WP:CSD#U1 as long as it is in "your" userspace, no matter who has edited it. And if deleted, it may be recreated later with different content. However, if another editor also edits the page, and if text derived from those edits is eventually moved to an article, it might be needed to maintain the history, possibly hidden under a redirect, for attribution and copyright purposes. For this reason I would suggest that you consider a unique name instead, such as User:Richard27182/temppages/ArticleName where "ArticleName" indicates the article being worked on. Then you could later create User:Richard27182/temppages/Article2 (or whatever) even before you were done with the first work page.

One problem with doing extensive work on an article outside of the article itself is that uninvolved editors might make changes to it while you and anyone working with you are developing your changes. If this happens it is your responsibility to notice or check the history, and to incorporate such changes into your draft, or else to be ready to account for having, in effect, reverted them. In particular, when such changes include the addition of appropriate, reliably sourced content, you are responsible for making sure that the state of the article after your edit(s) to include your changes does not remove such content unjustifiably. Of course, if such edits are to a different section of the article, there would not be an issue.

Please read Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia to be familiar with the attribution issues that might arise, and how to handle them.

Happy editing. DES ^(talk) 15:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel.

 Thank you for your reply. It is very thorough and contained some important information I was not aware of, mainly the need to maintain the history of edits made using that method. For that reason, I think I'll plan to follow your suggestion of using unique names for such pages and not plan to delete them at the end. Also I'm glad you mentioned Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia; I would not have known about that aspect of copying material from articles, even to temporary "work space." Would it be sufficient for me to place something in the edit summary of the temporary work space such as "copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution"? And if I do that, would it be necessary for me to repeat it in the edit summary each time the temporary work space is edited? Or would having it in the edit summary of the first version be sufficient?

 I'm not even 100% sure I'll be needing to use a temporary work space to work with another editor on these changes; but I figure it's good for me to find out now what I'll need to know in the event that I do end up doing it that way. Many thanks.

Richard27182 (talk) 08:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Richard27182, Placing such a note in the edit summary of the work area that links to the source article on the edit when content is copied in is sufficient, there is no need to repeat it on subsequent edits, unless additional content is copied in, particularly if content is copied in from a different source article. DES ^(talk) 11:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Professional Aviation Safety Specialists, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wired. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you DESiegel

Thank you DES, Sorry for the inconvenience. I have noted down the solution which you have provided, will make sure not to hamper the article. Thank you once again. Sykonos (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, DESiegel/Archive 13. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by DES ^(talk) 17:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Upload a photo

Thanks for offer to change title. I took care of this, but I could use some help uploading a photo to place on Wikipedia page I am drafting. Might you help with that?Rtbonnecaze (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, Rtbonnecaze, a photo should be about the last thing added to a draft; finding suitable citations to independent reliable sources is much more important. But since you asked, you can use Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. See Help:File page and Wikipedia:Uploading images for more detail, and see Wikipedia:Picture tutorial for how to insert an image into a page once it is uploaded. I hope that helps. DES ^(talk) 03:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I am putting all the references in now. Because I am not a confirmed user yet, I cannot upload a photo with the wizard, hence my request for help. One one of the help pages, it was suggested that someone else might, and so I asked. Possible?Rtbonnecaze (talk) 03:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I could, Rtbonnecaze. You would need to point me to the image you want uploaded, and clear evidence that it is public domain or freely licensed. For a living person, fair use is pretty much out of the question. DES ^(talk) 03:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh a couple of other unrelated points, Rtbonnecaze. Generally do not link to the same Wikipedia article more than once in a given draft or article. Make sure that a draft does not read like a resume, but like an encyclopedia article. Note that wiki-links, while good, indeed essential, are not citations. I hope that helps a bit. DES ^(talk) 03:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The photo is at http://www.caltech.edu/news/john-brady-wins-fluid-dynamics-prize-36844. I am creating a biography page for John Brady. I actually have the original photo and so copyright is not an issue. Rtbonnecaze (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Rtbonnecaze, I'm afraid that copyright is very much an issue. That page has a copyright notice on it, and no free license. Even if you own the original print of the photo, unless you were the photographer, or have a written assignment of copyright from the photographer, you don't own the copyright. Nor could we accept your unsupported statement given that the image has been published. We would need a statement from CIT or something added to that web page releasing the image under a fully free license. DES ^(talk) 03:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, understood. I have several other photos where I am the photographer. How would I send one to you since they are not online?Rtbonnecaze (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Rtbonnecaze, The easiest way will be to wait until you are confirmed, you already have the 10 edits, so it will only take a few days. Failing that, you can post it to google docs or any other handy free site and send me the link, or use the "email this user" function to email it to me. In either case associate it with a statement that you took the photo and own the copyright, and that you release it under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license. I'm about to go offline for the night, so I won't get it uploaded until tomorrow at the soonest, and quite possibly not until Saturday, even if you post or email it within the next five minutes. DES ^(talk) 04:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

deletion of Bangla-Pesa

just fyi: I was in the process of removing all content from Grassroots Economics if you look at the several edits I made right after it was flagged. I just wanted to get it up there so others could start editing it. Given another hour I believe I could have finished. 197.248.56.198 (talk) 07:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

If you use the "email this user" function to let me know your email, or if you register an account, supply an email, activate that function on your account, and let me know your new user name, I will email you the test as it stood when it was deleted. You can then edit it off-wiki to remove any copyrighted content, and save it as a new page on-wiki. Or you could start over. Let me know here if you want me to email you the content. DES ^(talk) 13:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessary disambiguation at Humanzi (band)

Hello DES, I hope you are well. I came across the page Humanzi (band), and thought that (band) was unnecessary disambiguation since humanzee is spelled differently. However, someone already helpfully made a redirect to the band article at Humanzi, and so I was unable to move Humanzi (band) over the redirect. Could you move it for me? Thanks in advance, GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 12:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

GrammarFascist That redirect contains significant history for the current article, a result of a merge back in 2007. Therefore a simple move-over-redirect should not be done. It ewould require a history merge. That takes some time to investigate and do, so i will look into this when i can, or you could post a move request at WP:RM with a note about the need for a history merge. DES ^(talk) 13:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. (I had neglected to look at the redirect to see whether there was more to it than "#REDIRECT [[Humanzi (band)]]". What a mess! It looks as though both articles were in existence during at least parts of 2006 and 2007 for some reason. Is there anything I can do to help sort this out? (P.S. Thanks for your edits to the article itself, too.) —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 17:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Any time an admin is asked to do a move over & delete, s/he should check for history in the target. This kid of situation is a common result of article merges and some other cases. At this point, there are three choices:

1. Do nothing, leave the pages as they are. While this leaves an unneeded disambiguator in the article name, for a topic that isn't so well-known, that isn't a horrid result. It does no harm, really, and requires no work. It is not as though anyone is complaining about the slightly non-standard article title.
2. Swap the article and the redir, having each retain its current history. That works and avoids a history merge, but has the disadvantage that the remaining redir looks implausible and might be deleted with its freight of history by an admin who didn't check closely.
3. Do a history merge. This leaves all the history under the live article. It is more work, but leaves no problem going forward.

Have you any views on which choice to make, GrammarFascist? DES ^(talk) 21:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, of course 3 is the ideal solution — that is, what would be done in an ideal world. It does sound like a fair amount of work, however, and if I understand correctly, the merge isn't something I can really help with, not being an administrator. I think you're right that option 2 (swapping the titles) is likely to lead to the redirect being deleted and all that history lost. I'm fine with going with option 1, and just leaving the article and redirect as they are; as you say, the unnecessary disambiguation does no harm. I only proposed the move in the first place as a bit of tidying up. So if you're up for option 3, you have my support and any help I can contribute; but otherwise the situation can be left as is. Thanks for looking into it for me. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 22:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi DES! How can I find an experienced editor to have a look at Draft:Alex Gilbert? Is there a page somewhere on Wikipedia asking for assistance? Thanks! --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, DmitryPopovRU, I will try to take a look at Draft:Alex Gilbert a bit later. There are several pages where you may ask for assistance. There is the Teahouse, specifically designed to be friendly and helpful to relatively new editors. There is the Help desk where all sorts of questions about how to edit Wikipedia may be asked, and there is Editor assistance which is less busy. DES ^(talk) 23:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks DES! I just want to get this page worked on and in the mainspace. It is clearly notable, just needs some work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DmitryPopovRU (talk • contribs) 00:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

But yes DES! ! Please do have a look at the Draft if you can! I would really appreciate that! --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

DmitryPopovRU I looked the draft over. I am afraid it isn't ready to go live at this point. If it had no history, i might have been tempted to move it to mainspace, but given the past AfD and DRV, this would be pointless. It might well be speedy deleted as a recreation of content deleted after a discussion, and even if it wasn't, another AfD would quite likely wind up with the same result, and might even have the title permanently blocked. The real problem is that the only significant coverage listed is of his adoption and search for his birth parents, and that falls under WP:BLP1E (the one-event rule). If there were independent coverage of significant actions by the non-profit he founded, or better of him working with or through the non-profit, that would help a lot. If there were reviews in major newspapers or other comparable publications of his book, that could help. If there is continuing coverage of him by reliable sources, that would help, but if it is just rehashing the adoption thing, it won't help enough, probably. Finding more sources that just say the same things doesn't really help. He might eventually be notable for his movie career, but probably not for years. At present he is at the level of an assistant or a camera operator (according to the resume on his web site), and that just doesn't lead to notability as a rule. His book is only held by 6 libraries, and is only 41 pages long, according to OCLC.

You could add the |transtitle= parameter to the sources that are in Russian, giving a translated title for those articles, but I doubt this will make much difference, unless those articles cover him is significantly more depth than the English-language sources do. Unless you can find sources that cover him more extensively and in a different context, he is not now notable. If someone were to write a book about him (not by him) and have it published by a major publisher, that would make a big difference. But it doesn't seem to have happened so far.

I'm sorry, but I don't see this going live any time soon. If I were you i would save a copy of the draft source offline, and see what the situation is like in several years. Or keep the draft alive and wait for additional coverage to turn up. DES ^(talk) 02:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank You! I will keep doing my best to improve it :) I appreciate your help! --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Two unrelated questions concerning talk pages

Hi DESiegel.
 I have a couple of questions that are basically unrelated except to the extent that they both involve how talk pages should or should not be used.

• If I create a new page in my own user space (such as User:Richard27182/temppages/Sulfuric acid-1), and another editor and I are using that page for developing changes to be made to an existing article, would it be appropriate for us to use that page's talk page to discuss what we're doing on the regular part of that page?
• I was reading Help:Referencing for beginners without using templates and was surprised to read (near the end) "Experiment [with referencing techniques] on sandbox pages or your user talk page [emphasis added]."  It seems to be encouraging me to do something I was personally discouraged from doing (experimenting on a talk page, unless the experiment actually requires being done on a talk page). Am I misinterpreting something?
  

Richard27182 (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Richard27182 as to your first question, yes absolutely. That is exactly what such a talk page is for. s long as you ping each other, you have most of the advantages of having used your own user talk pages, and the advantage of having the specific discussion stay in association with the specific work it is about. Do remember the possible problems with the edits of uninvolved third parties, particularly if the article is a frequently edited one, but that has nothing to do with the talk page usage.

As to your second question, I had never seen that essay before. It does seem to recommend experimenting on your user talk page. If you do, the skies won't fall and you won't be blocked for doing so. I still think it is a poor idea, because it can cause confusion to others who are trying to communicate with you via your user talk page, but it isn't going to cause drastic disruption. Still I think I'll post at the essay's talk page suggesting that it be changed. Be aware that a page labeled as an essay is simply opinion. It may be opinion favored and followed by many, like WP:BRD or it may be one editor's view, which most others disagree with and would never follow, like Wikipedia:Don't bold your !votes. Also, the essay is at least 5 years old, and some things have changed in that time. I think there are some good reasons to use templates for citations that it doesn't mention. In particular, most citation templates generate hidden HTML data, known as "COinS metadata" (see COinS and Wikipedia:COinS). This is machine-readable bibliographic data which various programs and bots can use, and which a hand-crafted citation will never emit. But Wikipedia policy is very firm that hand-crafted citations are permitted, and i don't see that changing anytime soon, if ever. Still i personally use citation templates whenever possible, and encourage others to do so. DES ^(talk) 15:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel. Thank you. Your help and advice are always appreciated!
Richard27182 (talk) 07:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I hate to pester you again so soon.......

Hi DESiegel.  I hate to be pestering you again so soon with an issue; but I've been reading  Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All  for several days now and there seems to be something wrong. There is a purple background starting with the words "The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it."  It starts just above here. It seems like something that should be including only a small portion of the page, but the purple background actually includes a majority of the page, including the descriptions of numerous unrelated RfC's. I'm almost certain it's a mistake, but I'm not yet experienced enough to fix it. (I think it's only supposed to apply to the Talk:Inventions and Sinfonias (Bach) RfC.) Would you take a look at it when you have time? Thanks!
Richard27182 (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done, Richard27182. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. The issue was actually on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Language and linguistics where an archive top template had been copied without a matching bottom. DES ^(talk) 15:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Anjunabeats

Hello.

Please could you undelete the Anjunabeats page. I am not connected with the company, I am a fan. It is a very notable company that produces electronic music as is well known around the world. I can provide more information if you wish.

I do not understand well the procedures on Wikipedia for getting pages undeleted, but I am trying to get the Anjunabeats and Anjunadeep pages undeleted. I hope I am asking the right person in the correct manner. I will learn more about Wikipedia procedures and protocols if necessary.

Thank you very much for your assistance. I will be happy to provide any further information that you require.

My username on here is philcarterlondon and my email is phil_carter@Hotmail.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.98.66 (talk) 11:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

philcarterlondon, the article was deleted after discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anjunabeats. You should read that discussion and understand the issues raised. Primarily the deletion occurred because the article as it then stood failed to demonstrate notability. This term is used in a rather specialized way on Wikipedia, as you will see from reading the linked page. It must generally be demonstrated by citing multiple independent reliable sources that each cover the subject in some detail. This does not include anything from the subject or its website, or directly based on press releases, as none of those are independent. it does not include blogs, fan sites, or one-person web sites, as none of those are reliable. It generally means major newspapers, magazines, or online equivalents, scholarly journals, or books published by mainstream publishers (not self-publishers). Any restored article would need to include several such sources, each with at least several paragraphs about Anjunabeats. Can you provide links or citations to such sources?

If you can, I would consider restoring the article as a Draft for you to add such sources to it, and otherwise improve it. Once it clearly established the notability of the subject, a post could be made at Deletion Review asking that the draft be allowed back in the main article space in view of improved sourcing and demonstration of notability.

As a previously deleted article, this topic starts out with a negative presumption, which would need to be overcome. The best way to do that, in my experience, is to provide a solid draft that clearly establishes notability and complies with all relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I do not advise posting at Deletion Review without such a draft.

You could ask at WP:REFUND, but I doubt you would get any more favorable response.

By the way, since you have an account, it would be best if you made a habit of logging in to it when posting. It keeps the record of your contributions together, and actually preserves your privacy, as non-logged-in posts expose your IP address, which in some cases can be linked to your physical location or even your specific computer. It also make communication on-wiki with you much easier.

I hope this is helpful to you. DES ^(talk) 14:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello.

Thank you for your reply. I would be happy to create a draft to then put forward for a review.

Here are some articles from independent news sources that I hope will demonstrate the notability of Anjunabeats. Please let me know if this is insufficient and I will provide further references.

http://www.billboard.com/articles/6289197/above-beyond-live-group-therapy-sold-out-madison-square-garden

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/code/6128662/22-jump-street-soundtrack-top-5-chart-debut-dance-chart

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/music/article2417881.ece

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/jan/15/above-and-beyond-we-are-all-we-need-review

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/posts/la-et-ms-electric-daisy-carnival-closes-out-with-dreamy-exhaustion-20140623-story.html

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/posts/la-et-ms-beatport-awards-20140306-story.html

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/posts/la-et-ms-william-admits-using-edm-hit-own-lets-go-20130423-story.html

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/music/jaytechs-got-the-world-in-his-trance-20121003-26zec.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/asiannetwork/friction/future_friction0712.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/reviews/6j25

http://djmag.com/node/2186

http://djmag.com/content/beckwith-all-night-all-right

http://djmag.com/content/miami-blog-day-one

http://djmag.com/node/1406

In fact this magazine has too many articles to list here (see http://djmag.com/search/node/anjunabeats)

http://www.mixmag.net/read/anjunabeats-takeover-with-ilan-bluestone-jason-ross-genix-in-the-lab-la-dj-lab

http://www.mixmag.net/read/what-is-the-greatest-dance-track-of-all-time-features

http://www.residentadvisor.net/record-label.aspx?id=643

http://www.youredm.com/2015/05/28/anjunabeats-worldwide-05/

http://www.lessthan3.com/tag/anjunabeats

https://thump.vice.com/en_ca/topic/anjunabeats

http://thesixthirty.com/music/top-10-anjunabeats-songs-of-2015-so-far/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Anjunabeats/

http://www.musictimes.com/articles/55054/20151118/anjunabeats-2016-north-american-tour-dates-andrew-bayer-ilan-bluestone-grum.htm

http://www.musicconnection.com/tag/anjunabeats/

Thanks for your help,

Phil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philcarterlondon (talk • contribs) 18:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

A second opinion at the Teahouse

I've responded to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Edit to correctness. twice, but I think the questioner might benefit from seeing responses from other Teahouse volunteers. You're good at being diplomatic with editors like this one, which is why I'm picking on you in particular. If you think the question is better left alone, or simply don't have the time (I know you're busy), that's fine. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 14:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

An RfC question

Hi DESiegel.  Is it permissible, in an RfC, to have the RfC question include one or two permanent URL links (ie, [[Special:Permalink/314159265|article name]] to previous version(s) of the article, assuming there is a good reason for doing so?
Richard27182 (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Sheikh Omar

Hi, DES

I have been working on my Wiki page for Sheikh Omar and just wanted to let you know I have it posted already with my references, but I am having a hard time getting it approved. Would you be able to point me to errors I may need to fix?

Thanks for your time.

Linaloe ximena (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Akkbar, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You have been warned Anbar. Host of Teahouse. User Upaltez (talk) 05:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

A question about reverting

Hi DESiegel.  Once again I need your help/advice. A little over a week ago I noticed that someone had changed the photo in the Lewis Powell (conspirator) article from the authentic black and white to an artificially colorized version. I felt it detracted from the article so I reverted it back to the original (previous) version by editing the article and manually changing the specified name of the photo from the new name back to the original name exactly as it had originally appeared (copying and pasting the original photo name from the previous version that contained that photo). Everything seemed OK: the original black and white photo was restored to the article, no one reverted me, and I received no complaints. But then today I stumbled onto this (about reverting images). And now I'm afraid I might have done something wrong by doing the photo revert manually rather than according to the instructions in that link. (I really don't even understand those instructions; and at the time of the edit, I wasn't even aware of them.) Is it as least permissible to do what I did, or is it something I should not have done and must never do again. (As always thank you and I appreciate your help.)
Richard27182 (talk) 07:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Richard27182 You have done nothing wrong. You have misunderstood Help:Reverting#Reverting images. That refers to the situation where someone uploads a new version of an image at the same file name, and someone else whats to revert that change. Reverting a change in an article (or other page) as to what image is linked for display is no different from any content revert, and the way you did it (according to your description, I haven't checked the page yet) is fine. Of course, when manually entering a file name, one must be very careful to get it exactly correct, or it won't display properly. You could simply revert the change just as with any change, but if there were other changes that you don't wish to revert, then manually changing the file name as you did is best. DES ^(talk) 13:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel.  Thank you for putting my mind at ease. You were quite correct; I had totally misinterpreted the section I linked to. (Maybe they should rewrite that to make it a bit clearer.) Anyway I appreciate your clarifying that for me. As always, your help is so much appreciated. Thanks.
Richard27182 (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Many Thanks for Your Orientation

David, thank you so much for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteKrystal (talk • contribs) 19:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Many Thanks for Your Orientation

I'm trying this again -- thank you! WhiteKrystal (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

A somewhat urgent question

Hi DESiegel.
 I have a question that I am relatively anxious to find the answer to. Is it permissible for an editor to advertise⁄promote an active RfC on the Village Pump if the editor is not the editor who started the RfC, but simply an editor who joined the discussion some time after the RfC was started? And if the answer is "yes," is it required to obtain consensus for such promotion, or may the editor just go ahead and do it? (Of course this assumes that the RfC is not already being promoted on the VP, and it goes without saying that the promotion must be completely neutral and totally without bias.)
 The reason I'm asking this is I'm involved in an RfC which (in my opinion) appears to be dominated by a small group of like-minded and extremely inflexible editors, and I think the RfC would probably benefit if it had the participation of more editors. As always, thank you for your help. And Happy Holidays!
Richard27182 (talk) 06:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.

The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

Happy New Year, DESiegel!

Happy New Year!

DESiegel,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy 2016

Hi DESiegel.  I've missed seeing your postings and being able to interact with you on Wikipedia. I hope you're well. And please accept my sincere wishes for a happy and prosperous 2016.
Richard27182 (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Richard27182. I have been inactive recently due to a combination of pressing family matters, and an excessively busy time at work. But I have not forgotten Wikipedia, and i will be around. Thanks for your note. DES ^(talk) 12:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel.  Your message is most welcome, and it's also a relief to hear that you are OK. I look forward to exchanging messages with you in the future. I hope the pressing family matters are working out OK. Again it was great to hear from you!
Richard27182 (talk) 13:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Frontex logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Frontex logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Email

Hello, DESiegel. 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Richard27182 (talk) 10:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

February events and meetups in DC

Greetings from Wikimedia DC!

February is shaping up to be a record-breaking month for us, with nine scheduled edit-a-thons and several other events:

• On Friday, February 12, NPR will host a Black History Month First Edit event.
• On Saturday, February 13 and Sunday, February 14, we're working with the Wiki Education Foundation to hold a series of four edit-a-thons at the AAAS 2016 Annual Meeting.
• On Tuesday, February 16, we're holding the Smithsonian American Art Museum and American University WikiWorkshop with Professor Andrew Lih's class.
• On Saturday, February 20, the Smithsonian American Art Museum will host the African American Artists Edit-a-Thon.
• On Friday, February 26, Howard University will host its second annual Black History Month Edit-a-Thon.
• On Saturday, February 27, we have three different events. In the morning, we're holding an Accessibility Edit-a-Thon at Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Library. In the afternoon, we'll host our second February WikiSalon at Cove Dupont Circle, followed by our monthly dinner meetup at Vapiano.

We hope to see you at one—or all—of these events!

Do you have an idea for a future event? Please write to us at info@wikimediadc.org!

Kirill Lokshin (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

You're receiving this message because you signed up for updates about DC meetups. To unsubscribe, please remove your name from the list.

Please help

Hello DESiegel! Thank you for the opportunity that through the Teahouse I can write to you. I am new here and I am working on a 6 years old article that was not properly sourced. I found more than 40 secondary sources that I have now built in. My problem is that almost no one controls what I am doing, thou I have changed more than a half of the article, thus, I should like kindly ask you, that if your time allows, just take a glance to the article and tell me your advises. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zolt%C3%A1n_Deme and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zolt%C3%A1n_Deme My other problem is that this tag "Find sources: "Zoltán Deme" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images" proved to be useless for reaching the sources of the 1960-1980 decades, especially the sources of the past communist countries in East Europe where most of the libraries very poorly digitized. For example "Scholar" gives 1 citation, though just with 10 minutes research I got immediately 20 citations! :[[6]] page 65 [[7]] p.2 [[8]] p.23 [[9]] p.1 [[10]] p.289 [[11]] p.5 [[12]] p.2 [[13]] p.353 [[14]] p.35 [[15]] p.1 [[16]] p.46 [[17]] p.75 [[18]] p.63 [[19]] p.84 [[20]] p.64 [[21]] p.1 [[22]] p.48 [[23]] p.317 [[24]] p.196 [[25]] p.101. (Plus I got many items, as "required reading" in the universities, like [[26]] p.1 [[27]] p.1 [[28]] p.48 [[29]] and so on). For other example, Books, Google Books gives 3 items, while this site (and others) show the pictures and data of more than 20 items! [[30]] [[31]] [[32]] This misleads almost everyone, presents the subject non-notable with only one citation and three books, thus, I had to go over this problem and collect printed material. Would you kindly investigate the improved article, is my work now sufficient? I saw your contributions, so any advice, any proposal, any suggestion would be appreciated! Thanks for reading this, sincerely yours, Norbert. 89.133.187.29 (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

A copyright question

Hi DESiegel.  (For the sake of full disclosure, I just want to mention that I'm asking one or two other administrators this same question.) In a Wikipedia article about a motion picture, how closely can the plot summary duplicate the plot summary from the Turner Classic Movies website. Is it OK if it reads basically the same with some words changed here and there? Or would that be a copyright violation? I'm asking because I noticed that (as of this writing [11:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)]) the Plot section of the Wake of the Red Witch article is extremely similar to the plot summary for that film on the website TCM.COM (click READ THE FULL SYNOPSIS). (There is actually a reference to the TCM website at the end of the Plot section.) I doubt that it's a problem, because the Wikipedia article has been that way since December of 2008; and I imagine that if there were a problem it would have been detected and corrected by now. Nevertheless, I'm curious. Thanks; I appreciate your time.
Richard27182 (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Richard27182, Assuming that you have accurately described the situation (I haven't checked yet), that would definitely not be acceptable. See Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. It is a copyright infringement to take a copyrighted text (online or off) and change just a few words but keep the structure and much of the wording the same, and post it or publish it as an original work. However, some caution is needed. it is possible that someone working for TCM actually copied the Wikipedia article, particularly if that article has been stable for several years. That would need to be checked before concluding that the Wikipedia article was an infringement. Or both our article and TCM might have copied a public domain source (although that is unlikely for the plot of a recent movie). DES ^(talk) 13:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Richard27182, a little more on how to tell if an apparent copyright violation really is one. If the offending content was inserted in the article in a single edit, or a few large edits close in time by the same editor, that suggests copying. On the other hand, if it was built up over a long series of incremental changes by multiple editors, that suggests original creation. Also, often the internet Archive or other sources can be used to determine when the "source" was first posted. If it was well after the Wikipedia article had assumed the common form, that suggests that the source actually copied Wikipedia (or that both copied a third source), not the other way around. None of these are foolproof indicators, but they can help. It is also a good idea to reach out to the editor(s) who inserted the questioned content into Wikipedia. However, that has to be done in a delicate way, and not seem accusatory when the matter is still in doubt. DES ^(talk) 14:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel.  Concerning the Wake of the Red Witch article, I've done a little more research on this issue and have some additional information; but I'm not so sure it helps clarify anything:

• The plot summary section (more or less as it appears today) was entered as one large edit in December 2008 [33]. This plot summary apparently was intended to include an inline reference to the TCM website, but incorrect formatting prevented it from appearing as a reference. (At some point that was corrected.) I did a Google search and it turns out that that plot summary appears on numerous web pages (some of which actually mention Wikipedia as a source). Here are a few examples:

• http://www.afi.com/members/catalog/AbbrView.aspx?Movie=26168
• http://everything.explained.today/Wake_of_the_Red_Witch/
• http://www.liquisearch.com/wake_of_the_red_witch/plot
• http://www.worldcat.org/title/wake-of-the-red-witch/oclc/423397086

• The editor who originally added the material in question is Savolya. I have not made any attempt to communicate with him. But I did do some research. Savolya is a currently active contributing editor. Also, and I know that this is purely circumstantial evidence and does not directly bear on the issue at hand, but I noticed that Savolya has been blocked twice in the past for "Repeated copyright violations despite being warned."  [34]

Of course none of this actually proves anything since we don't know who copied what from whom. But I hope this information may be of some help in figuring out what if anything needs to be done concerning the article.
Richard27182 (talk) 08:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

EPA page copyright issue

I created a page for the EPA in consultation with the Strategic Engagement and Governance Branch of the Authority. I am also an employee. The page has been removed for copyright infringement, with the EPA Annual Report cited as the source of the infringement. We have permission from the organisation to use the material, and we have referenced the Annual Report. We wish factual information about the EPA to be available on Wikipedia as we recognise it is an important reference work. Can the page please be reinstated, or more specific information provided on what needs to be rewritten given we have permission to use the Annual Report. Kagey2005 (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I have replied to the duplicate message at User talk:Kagey2005. DES ^(talk) 13:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Euro-Mediterranean Human Right Monitor

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Euro-Mediterranean Human Right Monitor. 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. Qualitatis (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Russian Empire

Sorry to bother you. But do you think the Russian Empire looks very weird? Can you make work again? Michael Bergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC) OK, now somebody fixed. Thank you. I did't know how. Michael Sergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Michael Sergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich, this group of edits was vandalism, and was shortly reverted by an other editor. The history tab will allow you to see who has made what changes to an article, and to revert unwanted ones. DES ^(talk) 14:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

You made a sign? To call me? A little box was red. I look at REVERT. Nice of you to tell me. I never do Wikipedia before, because in doubt if correct. Was thinking it is a nice way learning English. Better then learning books books saying like ... " I might be late, but I promise I'll do my best" and : "Jack is as old as my daughter" and " Helen works as a teacher". That is boring. But now I think Wikipedia is complicated. Somebody comes and removes thing and say things I never said. Maybe not so good for learning English. Michael Sergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Michael Sergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich, by making a link to your user page as part of a signed comment, I am "pinging" you, see WP:NOTIFICATIONS for more on this process. Wikipedia is indeed complicated, but one need not learn all of its complexities to contribute usefully. Whether it is useful for learning English, i can't say. I am not sure what you mean by "Somebody comes and removes thing and say things I never said." Anyone may edit any article at any time, so you can't expect what you write in an article to stay unchanged. On a talk page, such as this, your signed comments should not normally be altered by anyone else. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here or at the Teahouse. DES ^(talk) 01:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you made special page for me? Called Michael Bergius Ferdinand Fedorovich? Do you want me to use it? Michael Sergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

No I didn't make any such page. I don't know who might have done so. DES ^(talk) 01:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

You are very good for learning, NOTIFICATION, yes. Very nice talking to you. That was box. There isa page, this page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Michael_Bergius_Alexander_Ferdinand_Fedorovich Michael Bergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I said thank you, do you hear it? Michael Sergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich (talk) 01:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

A question and a reminder

Hi DESiegel
 This isn't at all urgent, but when you have the time I have a technical question. I know there are (at least) two ways to link to an old version of an article (or page):

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy&direction=prev&oldid=706174807 This is a URL link]

and

• [[Special:Permalink/706174807|This is a permalink]]

I've been experimenting in my sandbox, and I've found that the URL method always works, but the Permalink method frequently malfunctions, bringing up the wrong previous version or the current version. I've tried it many many times using two different browsers (albeit using the same tablet) and always with the same result. I'm wondering if this is a known Wikipedia bug, or if it's more likely a problem at my end.

 Also I just wanted to remind you that the Wake of the Red Witch article still has the copyright violation, and ask if you would recommend that I fix it myself, or leave that to an editor with more experience than me.

 As always, thank you for your help and guidance.

Richard27182 (talk) 07:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Richard27182, I have mostly used the URL method myself, both for permalinks and for diffs, although many editors use special:diff. I have not heard of any particular bug using the Special:Peermalink method, but there might well be one. I suggest posting on the technical pump, where you are likely to get a better answer.

As to Wake of the Red Witch there is no reason for you not to fix it yourself, if you are willing to. Just remove the entire plot section and replace it with a brief summary in your own words, based on appropriate sources, and citing them. Others can always edit your version, if they care to. Mention removal of copyvio in your edit summary. DES ^(talk) 11:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel.
 As always I appreciate your help and advice. Your suggestion to post the possible Permalink issue at Village Pump / technical is an excellent one; I don't know why it didn't occur to me.
 Concerning the Wake of the Red Witch copyright thing, would it be OK if (for the time being) I just replace the current Plot summary section with the most recent version of the Plot summary that does not contain the copyright violation? That would immediately take care of the copyright problem, and would give me (or another editor) plenty of time to come up with something really good to eventually replace it with.
 Thanks again for your help.
Richard27182 (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel.

 I've gone ahead and taken the copyright violation out of the Wake of the Red Witch article, and replaced the affected section with an old version (as a stopgap measure). (I also removed the "close paraphrasing" template.) Hopefully before too long I (or some other editor) will come up with a good summary that does not violate copyright. Here is the diff.

 Concerning my Permalink question, I posted it at Village Pump / technical as you suggested, and within an hour two editors replied with the answer. Thank you for your original suggestion; as I wrote before, I would not have thought of it myself.

Richard27182 (talk) 07:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Richard27182, good on both counts. Thanks. DES ^(talk) 23:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Non English sources

If IBN-7 and Rajasthan Patrika reports something opposite of Rediff.com, then which can be given more weight? The views of the first two sources are supported by one English source Daily Mail which is not considered good by Wikipedia (Joseph2302 gave me links of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Reliable_sources ). --Captain Spark (talk) 05:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The answer is, whichever seems more reliable on such a topic. I don't know those sources well enough to judge. The support of The Daily Mail should probably neither add weight nor subtract it. If both sides are generally reliable, report both positions with cites to each. DES ^(talk) 22:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC) @Captain Spark: DES ^(talk) 22:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I need your help and advice

Hi DESiegel.  I need your opinion. I've given it a lot of thought, and I think I'd be willing to try to write a plot summary for the Wake of the Red Witch article to replace the version that had to be reverted because of copyright violation. But I've never before contributed anything to an actual article amounting to anything more than a brief sentence or two. If I were to write such a thing and place it somewhere in my own user space, would you be willing to review it and give me your opinion as to whether or not it meets Wikipedia's standards? Of course I would not expect you to evaluate if for accuracy (unless you're familiar with the film); I'm thinking mainly in terms of evaluating it for style and other such considerations. And if your answer is "yes," could I name the page in my user space more or less whatever I want (within reason, of course)? Thank you.
Richard27182 (talk) 10:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Richard27182, sure I'll look it over if you write it. Yes, you can name such a page whatever you want: something like Richard27182/Red Witch Plot would work. Thanks. DES ^(talk) 12:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC) @Richard27182: DES ^(talk) 12:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel.  I've completed the draft of my proposed replacement for the Plot section of the Wake of the Red Witch article. I've placed it here: User:Richard27182/sandbox/drafts-etc/Wake of the Red Witch-plot-001

I'm pretty sure it will require some work before it's Wikipedia-worthy; but that's why I've asked you to review it to begin with. Please feel free to make notes right there on the page. I won't actually place it into the article itself until you give it your approval. Thank you for helping me with this.

Richard27182 (talk) 09:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Richard27182, I have looked at your draft, and it looks good to me. I have made one small edit, and placed some longer comments at User talk:Richard27182/sandbox/drafts-etc/Wake of the Red Witch-plot-001. In general i think you should cite the TCM page, and possibly the film itself, althoguh the latter is not required. Otherwise, this looks good to go in my view. DES ^(talk) 15:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel.  Please see my new message to you at:
   User talk:Richard27182/sandbox/drafts-etc/Wake of the Red Witch-plot-001
Richard27182 (talk) 10:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel.  I decided to at least attempt to include attribution in this edit for two reasons: First, even though your contributions may have been "slight," I still feel you deserve credit for them. And second, it's a good opportunity for me to see if I can do it properly, since someday I may be in a situation where it will be mandatory for me to attribute correctly. I checked out the {{copied}} template and, while I think I more or less understand how it works, I think it's likely I would probably make one or more mistakes using it. So I opted for one of your alternate suggestions. When you get a chance, please check what I did and let me know if it would have been sufficient, if this were a situation where proper attribution would have been absolutely required. Please see the diff (especially its edit summary) and the corresponding section added to the article's talk page. As always, thank you so much.
Richard27182 (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Richard27182 That is an acceptable way of providing attribution. It is not a bad idea in such a case to include a list of authors (esp if the list is short) in the talk page post, in case the linked page should get deleted, but it is not required. Thank you. DES ^(talk) 12:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel.
 I just wanted to say one last big thank you for helping me make my contribution to the Wake of the Red Witch article. I didn't need much guidance in composing the text (except for that part about expressing an opinion about something's importance). But I was not very well-versed on copying into mainspace, and your advice in that area was very informative and useful to me. Even though in this particular case attribution wasn't really necessary, I'm glad I did it anyway because doing it gave me the experience and confidence I'll need to do it when it actually is required.
 I've made a few lengthy postings in talkspace, but my contributions to mainspace had all been brief, ranging from a few words to a couple short sentences. In terms of the size of my contributions to individual articles, my recent contribution to the Wake of the Red Witch article easily beats my previous record by at least a full order of magnitude. For the first time, I actually feel like a true, bona fide, full-fledged Wikipedian! You have my sincerest thanks for all your help and guidance, past and future.
Rich
Richard27182 (talk) 08:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:John Bartlet Brebner concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:John Bartlet Brebner, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Agilefant

I have to say, I don't get this. Literally all of the prose was copy/pasted from the two primary sources it cites (other than "Agilefant is a technology company based in Finland." and "Agilefant is known for" inserted before another copy/pasted description of what it is (i.e. Agilefant is known for itself according to itself). When an article is a copy of the subject's website(s), that, to me, should qualify for G11/G12. Now that you've reworded it, G12 may not apply but there's no claim of significance... ? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

When we can reword rather than delete, Rhododendrites, we should, nor is copying two sentences the kind of thing that generally warrants speedy deletion, in my view. Nor was this blatant advertising, again, in my view. it was at least ostensibly a factual description of a tech company. It is already tagged for a need to demonstrate notability. It could, arguably, be tagged for A7, no claim of significance. But it wasn't, and i think it would be better to wait a bit and see if one can be added, and perhaps sourced. DES ^(talk) 01:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

As a general principle, I agree, but while "copying two sentences" sounds trivial, only a few words weren't copied ("Agilefant is a technology company based in Finland" and "Agilefant is known for"). I didn't tag it for G11 (I just added the G12 and didn't think to add A7 since the G12 seemed obvious enough), but I would argue that if all of the material comes from the subject's website, promotional language isn't required for it to be assumed promotional (though I acknowledge that's moot, because the G12 would always take precedence in such situations). Anyway, thanks for the response. I should probably mention that I did send it to AfD. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Rhododendrites. I worked largely from Earwig's tool, which showed only a 58% copying level. I saw the AfD, and have commented there. DES ^(talk) 01:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Elyssa

I stumbled across, the page about the elyssa alphabet a few days ago and it appeared very interesting to me. Its a shame that you've requested its deletion. could you send me the source material before deletion ? The information on the page sounded quite genuine to me although lacking referencing.92.155.136.126 (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

It is interesting, but it appears to be largely the creation of a single person, with no significant coverage by independent sources. I made an attempt to search for useful independent sources, and i couldn't find any online.

I can't send you the article text (which i assume is what you mean by "the source" ) unless you provide me with your email address. The easiest way to do this is if you register an account, supply Wikipedia with your email address and confirm it, and then use the "email this user" feature to communicate with me. Otherwise, you could post your email here, but that would expose it to the world. DES ^(talk) 20:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

March events and meetups in DC

Greetings from Wikimedia DC!

Looking for something to do in DC in March? We have a series of great events planned for the month:

• On Wednesday, March 9, we'll host our first March WikiSalon at Cove Dupont Circle.
• On Friday, March 11, the National Archives will host the Women in the Civil War Edit-a-Thon.
• On Saturday, March 19, the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian will host the Color History with the Smithsonian! event, and we'll hold our second Accessibility Edit-a-Thon at the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Library.
• On Sunday, March 20, the American Chemical Society will host the Computers in Chemistry Edit-a-Thon.
• On Saturday, March 26, we'll host our second March WikiSalon at Cove Dupont Circle, followed by our monthly dinner meetup at Vapiano.

Can't make it to an event? Most of our edit-a-thons allow virtual participation; see the guide for more details.

Do you have an idea for a future event? Please write to us at info@wikimediadc.org!

Kirill Lokshin (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You're receiving this message because you signed up for updates about DC meetups. To unsubscribe, please remove your name from the list.

Thank you!

Thank you David.Artsybabs (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, DESiegel/Archive 13. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by DES ^(talk) 22:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

WIR A+F

	Hoping you enjoyed the recently-held in-person Art+Feminism meetup, we cordially invite you continue your participation by joining the worldwide virtual online event hosted by Women in Red. March 2016 (Women's History Month)

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Question about page creation

how i create a page of wikipedia of SKD Academy of dramatic arts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akash Dahariya (talk • contribs) 10:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Akash Dahariya. In general, Wikipedia will only have articles about "notable" subjects. Wikipedia uses this term in a rather unusual way, to mean that the subject has been covered by independent published reliable sources. Please see our guideline on the notability of organizations and Wikipedia's Golden Rule for more details on what makes a topic, and particularly an organization, notable. For how to start an article, please see Your First Article for advice. I strongly urge you to first see if you can find the sources needed to establish notability, and if and only if you can, to use the article wizard to create a draft, subject to review through the Articles for Creation project (AfC).

note

DES - in reference to your note on Legacypac's talk page [35], you're wasting your breath. Legacypac plays fast and loose with other editors comments. He regularly deletes or edits mine (and not in userspace, in actual Talk pages) if he doesn't like what I'm saying. When I offered a corroborating diff in an ANI complaint another editor lodged against him, he swooped in and deleted it [36] before anyone could see it. I don't bother complaining about these because they happen so frequently I'd have to become an ANI queen instead of a content editor if I did. I just try to avoid him now and recommend you do the same instead of becoming frustrated. LavaBaron (talk) 03:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Akash Dahariya

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Akash Dahariya, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
• It appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. (See section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Akash Dahariya, "the founder of SKD Academy & Productions".

" A short two sentence identification is not excessively promotional, It can help identify possible bias when the editor writes about his own work, and so is relevant"

You mean, like this...? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, just so. DES ^(talk) 13:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

internal external links

Hello ,

Do you mean 1,2,3,etc external links in the page? Can use citing instead of them or what shall i do? Ebrumarbling (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

protecting Talk page

Hi, are you able to protect my Talk page from Legacypac? I've twice requested he not post on it as per WP:NOBAN but he's made it clear he plans to continue to do so anyway [37]. Sorry to bother you with this but I don't have access to any tools that will allow me to restrain specific editors other than personal requests, which he has indicated he will not honor. I'm in the middle of a lot of GAN reviews at the moment and don't have time to be continually policing my Userspace from a single editor on top of monitoring my own Talk page comments to ensure he's not editing them. If there's a way you can protect my Talk page from him for just 10 days or so I should be caught up and can deal with non-content matters manually then. Thanks, in advance - LavaBaron (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Or-fu-re

Template:Or-fu-re has been nominated for merging with Template:Orfur. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Centralized ENGVAR, DATEVAR, CITEVAR discussion

This may be of interest, since you were making related to change to one of these guidelines recently: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Cleaning up and normalizing MOS:ENGVAR, WP:CITEVAR, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, SMcCandlish, I just read through it. Frankly I am dubious that your recent edits to WP:CITEVAR had sufficient consensus behind them, although IMO they don't change the actual meaning at all, and I don't intend to revert them. I intend to propose a further change, on WT:CITE, the proper place for discussing such a change. DES ^(talk) 12:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't expect "zero objections of any kind".  :-) It's been my experience that policyforks like this cannot be resolved without bold action followed by (at least mostly) centralization, that focuses on the desired outcome, and what people substantively object to and why, rather than simply objecting to change. That's exactly what it took to re-normalize pointed PoV-forking of NCFAUNA, NCFLORA and several other pages away from MOS:LIFE a few years ago. What's happened here is more drift that forking, but it's been closer to a fork (and more PoV) at CITEVAR than at any of the other *VARs. So, I'm expecting more resistance at/from that sector. Nature of the beast. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Image deletions from commons

Hi. I've just had two images deleted from the Wikipedia page about my work. The page is entitled Daniel Adel. I posted them to WikiCommons myself and have full copyright. Could you advise me on how to avoid having them removed again? ThanksDiego287 (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Diego287. Those images were deleted because they were photographs of paintings by a living artist. You may have taken the photos, and so hold the copyright on the photos (if any, probably there is none under the Bridegeman vs Corel case). But the photos are derivative works of the paintings, which are under copyright. You don't have, or at least you didn't claim to have, a release under a free license from the artist, Daniel Adel. Or are you claiming to be Daniel Adel? In any case, an email, verifiably from Daniel Adel, would need to be sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. It should include the text at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries, filled in, and make it clear that the artist is releasing all rights in the paintings, or at least all derivative works rights in your photos of the paintings. It should also include the exact file names on commons formerly used or that will be sued in future. AFTER that has been sent, reupload and add {{OTRS pending}} to the commomns image page. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more details. DES ^(talk) 16:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I've sent the email with the declaration. Should I wait for a response before reuploading?Diego287 (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

You don't have to, Diego287. That is what the {{OTRS pending}} is for. It tells other editors that the permissions info has been sent and will/should shortly be confirmed by the Wikimedia OTRS team. That is why the email needs to include the exact filenames, so that the volunteeer wo processes it can find the image file and mark it as confirmed to be peroperly licensed. The email should clearly indicate that it comes from the copyright holder ON THE PAINTINGS, which would be Daniel Adel unless he has sold his rights to someone else. DES ^(talk) 17:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced posts

DE, please don't remove posts from Template talk:Talk header without posting a message on the posters user talk. Many people link to this template in their sigs, and confused new editors often wind up there. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough Oiyarbepsy, you have a point. I see you have already notified Nirmal chuphal in this instance, but should a similar misplaced post come to my attention in future, i will notify the poster. Thank you. DES ^(talk) 09:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DESiegel. You have new messages at 331dot's talk page.
Message added 17:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

331dot (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

BLP sources

Hi DES, I need to give a legitimate proof that BRP changed its name from Bombardier Recreational Products to BRP. What counts as a legitimate proof? Who do I send it to? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chloepayen (talk • contribs) 09:56, 1 April 2016‎

Hi, Chloepayen. Best would be newspaper or magazine stories that use the new name. 2nd best would be an official statement from the company on its web site or in a press release. Both of the above would be really nice. Post links to online stories or statements on the page Talk:Bombardier Recreational Products. Then drop me a line on this page that you have done so, or post on the Teahouse as you did before, or both. You can also draw attention to the talk page with {{Request edit}}. DES ^(talk) 14:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, some additional news stories or other independent references would be good for the article as a whole. You cna do the same with them. DES ^(talk) 15:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I have added the sources on Talk:Bombardier Recreational Products.

Disambiguation link notification for April 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Drogo of Nesle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hungarian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Gadri

Gadre, Khawab and now Chingamen are all socks of Gadri. Just thought you should know. Notes that JamesBWatson turned it into a redirect (#REDIRECT Antal) before a sock(Gadre) blanked that and started again. I think it should be a redirect again as it was created by a block-evading sock, and would have done that or deleted it if you hadn't acted. Doug Weller talk 20:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Doug Weller. If it is a valid topic I don't much care what editor first edited it. (I have never found the essay WP:DENY even slightly persuasive.) If sources can be found and the topic is notable and encyclopedic, it should remain. Otherwise it doesn't matter so much, in my view. DES ^(talk) 21:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

NYT

Do you want to add this to your user page: Wikipedia:NYT/Userbox I let my subscription lapse and got newspaper.com for a bit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 20:07, 8 April 2016‎

No, I generally dislike userboxes, and I don't have any on my user page. But I may mention the mater in prose. Thanks, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). DES ^(talk) 00:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:NPA

None of those accounts have been autoconfirmed, I think we can lower the protection to semi.--v/r - TP 03:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jennifer Gates, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sudbury. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

David Jolly "negative"

When you can find anything I comment upon that is wrong, you'll let me know, won't you? In the mean time, refrain from posting unfounded accusations on my pages, otherwise I'll ask for intervention measures which I'm sure you won't like. Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Damotclese, the only "accusation" I posted on your talk page was of violating WP:BLP by making unsourced negative comments about living people on an an article talk page. That wasn't unfounded, the comments are in the page history. If you think I am acting improperly, you can use dispute resolution or open a thread on WP:ANI. I think you will find that community consensus is that what I did, in removing the comment and warning you about such comments was a perfectly normal administrative action. DES ^(talk) 16:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I should mention that my comments were in no way "ideological" -- indeed I am not even aware of what ideological issues are involved in the David Jolly matter, nor do i care. DES ^(talk) 16:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't do it again, you have been warned, your behavior is not acceptable. Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Very funny, Damotclese. I warned you because you directly violated an accepted policy here, specifically WP:BLP. If you do so again, you may be warned further, or you may be blocked without further warning, depending on the precise nature of the violation. By referring to that as an "unfounded accusation" and as an "ideological" statement, and by your tone here, you are at least arguably violating WP:CIVIL, as well. What exactly is there in my post to your talk page that you object to, that you find "inappropriate" and why? You have been an editor here for a long time, even if not a hugely frequent editor compared to some, so you know or ought to know how Wikipedia and its policies work. What, specifically, are you "warning" me not to do, and what is the policy or guideline behind that request, if any? DES ^(talk) 20:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks from Lucy

Hi thanks for answering my question you been very helpful Lucy Lucy (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

You are very welcome, and Please, Lucy idegwu, don't hesitate to ask again if anything is unclear or frustrating on Wikipedia. DES ^(talk) 14:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	You deserve this for helping out and I won't hesitate at all if I have any questions or ideas on an article that I'm willing to cooperate with you. Lucy (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi again, pls is there anyway you can send me some names of articles that needs to be updated or I have to search Lucy (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar, User:Lucy idegwu, (which i have copied to my user page, to join my collection) and for wanting to help. One task that you could do (there are many) is copyediting. See Wikipedia:Basic copyediting for directions on how to do that. Category:All articles needing copy edit is a list of over 2,000 articles in need of such work. Wikipedia:Community_portal#Todo lists some nine different tasks that need doing here, each with a list of articles that need such work. Tell me if these links are helpful or not, please. DES ^(talk) 16:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for your extremely helpful answer on my teahouse question!

Elsa Enchanted (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the help !

Thank you for dropping me a note on teahouse, your advice is greatly appreciated

T.L Cheng ( ATP Electronics ) (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Invitation: Poll on adding two navboxes to a recent GA article

Hi. I trust you are well :). May I prevail upon your good nature and extend an invitation for you to visit a poll and vote here . Of course please feel free to ignore my request if time is too short (and I'll just go away ). This vote is for a small issue—the insertion of two navboxes into Michael Laucke, a recent GA article. We thought it would be good policy to go through the democratic process of voting.

Thanks you so much in advance for your kind consideration and for your wonderful contributions to Wikipedia. With utmost respect and kind regards, Natalie Natalie.Desautels (talk) 07:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for helping

You deserve this,though it's not as nice as you. Lucy (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing the way!

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thanks for fixing a "Where the heck do I find it?" problem with a new Help section and appropriate redirects. --Thnidu (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cite OCLC

Template:Cite OCLC has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Robert Provan

Hi DESiegel. If you'd be so kind, would you please review the Robert Provan article and AfD as it relates to the significance of ADA lawsuits and history of same? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 11:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi DES I really need your help

If you remember me I was the guy who created the opic at teahouse about a product of the company I work for -Active@ KillDisk, and thanks to you my account and article wasnt deleted. I will be rude to ask for your help once more. After submitting the article it was rejected by the editor LaMona for a number of reasons and I can see some of them. However, throughout the further discussion she has showed in many cases that she doesnt know what is article about and that she has never seen a Wikipedia article about software. Once she [[38]] states that the article is not about the product but about the company (?), then she wants Deletion Standards to be removed although they are an essential part of the article, then she wants links to Universities and gov sites removed cause they are LSoft's clients (not bothering to consider that they buy software probably because its good) or it is not clear that KillDisk is recommended, she wants relevant Tech site reviews-when I add them she wants them removed because they are positive (although I did include one which is really not but it is based on the Demo version) and also wants me completely to remove Reception although every Wikipedia software page that I have ever read has Reception part. Now she wants me to add some reviews from journals that she recommended which include KillDisk but she can (and probably will) dismiss them later because they are not mentioning/reviewing/testing only KillDisk which was the reason why uni and gov links got rejected in by her in the first place. Help I dont know what to do... I understand that editing Wikipedia is strictly on voluntary basis and that one cant expect all people to know everything but this is starting to get ridiculous. Whats should I do? For example here is the CCleaner Wikipedia page [[39]] and you tell me how is my current draft worse?

Regards

Miskonius (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Stockton Beach

I noticed that two years ago, you tried to get a claim about "Mad Max" being filmed at Stockton Beach presented with a NPOV, but failed due to belligerence from "AussieLegend". I faced the same problem, so took it to dispute resolution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Stockton_Beach

I would appreciate it if you could add in your two cents!

The last day has been infuriating dealing with this. He is dead-set against presenting a NPOV on this issue.

Thanks so much, JimMarlor (talk) 03:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

entry for Richard Gisser (demographer)

Hi DES, I provided the text that you said one cannot read as it is behind a JSTOR paywall (though I thought there is a way for WP to get past it), on the Talk page of that entry. Could you kindly see if this is sufficient for taking out those "multiple issues"? Sorry for opening up a new section here but the last one seems to have got lost. Best --WernR (talk) 08:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

please comment ... best regards --WernR (talk) 09:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, DESiegel. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi DESiegel.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help

Hi DESiegel,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, DESiegel. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Aboobacker Amani

We are students of amani, Aboobacker Amani is a one faculty member at the Jamia al-Maquar, Director for Research and Development at the Arakkal Museum and member of advisory boards of the council for Museums and Zoos under the goverment of kerala and Tabah Foundation headquartered at Abu Dhabi.

• Sometimes we created about Aboobacker Amani but deleting before verification.
• Blocking the users without any reasons.

Finally we request to delete the user Aboobackeramani its a fake username to humiliate him.

7 students 137.97.37.22 (talk) 09:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)