Jump to content

User talk:FoCuSandLeArN/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Dynamic compression of the airways
added a link pointing to Expiration
Hydroporus artvinensis
added a link pointing to Tarsus
Hydroporus cagrankaya
added a link pointing to Tarsus
Hydroporus lundbergi
added a link pointing to Tarsus
Hydroporus sivrikaya
added a link pointing to Tarsus
Hydroporus toledoi
added a link pointing to Tarsus
Union Agriculture Group
added a link pointing to Share
Wesleyan Assurance Society
added a link pointing to Prudential Regulation Authority

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

CoverHound

We previously worked with you on approving the CoverHound Wikipedia page. Although our page was not approved, we’ve noticed that our competitors and similar insurance agencies are included in Wikipedia. We’re wondering how these companies were approved, given they are in the same position as CoverHound, and if there is additional edits we should be aware of, prior to resubmitting our page for approval.

We understand and appreciate the purpose of Wikipedia, but do believe that we have met the requirements for approval, including a consistent unbiased media coverage, strong partnerships, and national recognition as the only impartial, independent insurance agency. KatherineMoura (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello there! You might find WP:EXISTS to counter your argument about other competitors' articles. As it currently stands, your article was deleted, and would face an extremely low chance of being created again given it was deleted following a recent AfD discussion. The community deemed there wasn't enough coverage for it to pass WP:GNG. I would recommend you wait a few months or even years before you submit another draft, given good quality coverage doesn't accumulate from one day to the next. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Volleyball at the 2014 Asian Games

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Volleyball at the 2014 Asian Games. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Umpqua Community College shooting

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Umpqua Community College shooting. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Focusandlearn

Hi – I saw you deleted my draft article Black Box (company). You pointed out some concerns about copyright issues. I wrote the article you are accusing the content of being copied from. I'm not sure how to address your concerns short of telling the company that copied my article into a PDF that they then placed on their site to remove it from their site. And just curious – why would you assume a copy of a Wikipedia article on another site was original content that had nothing to do with Wikipedia? Please restore my draft article and minimize the extra work you're making me do.TechnoTalk (talk) 05:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid our policy on copyright is quite strict. If there is any recoverable content besides the copied material the deleting admin might be willing to forward it to you. Do not blame me for breaking Wikipedia's policy. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Automotive Hacking

Hey, thanks for the comment though I'm a bit confused. Were the included sources not enough for verification? Or are you referring specifically to the name of the article and not the content? I might have taking a liberty in calling it automotive hacking when I think it's mostly referred to as car hacking. Jloomy25 (talk) 04:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I merely commented on the topic of the submission, I did not review the draft. Having said that, no, I don't believe the sources you've provided are enough to establish the notion as notable. Perhaps WP:NEO might give you an inkling about what we're looking for. If not even the article's title is an established fact, then that should be enough indication that what you sent as a draft isn't suitable for Wikipedia. We're not a repository of ideas or essays; we only accept encyclopaedic articles. If car hacking is the appropriate term, please revise the draft accordingly. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

textbooks

In my opinion, Textbooks are notable if they can be shown to be the primary work in the field, or a historically important work. This is more restrictive than NBOOK, which would permit them or any book with two substantial reviews to be notable. But it is never permissible except for an unquestionably famous book to reprint the table of contents. That normally indicates promotionalism. (It is also intrinsically a copyvio, but there is no other way to present the information in those cases where it is acceptable content.) I'm almost certain from the wording that much of the rest of the description is also a copyvio. I've listed the draft in question for G11. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fiona Graham

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fiona Graham. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Frogman

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Frogman. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Shooting of Samuel DuBose

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shooting of Samuel DuBose. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Please look again at Werner G. Krebs

It is a prime example of WP:CITEKILL. I would have declined it on that basis Fiddle Faddle 16:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Timtrent: I removed many of those - by no means is it a decline rationale; the subject clearly passes WP:PROF and any posterior cleanup (I performed a cursory cleanup) can easily be addressed by mainspace editors. I appreciate your tagging, but I do think your statement went a bit overboard. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
We disagree on whether it is a reason to decline, which is fine. Thank you for further work on it. Fiddle Faddle 17:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Microsoft

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Microsoft. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Erroneous nomination of Draft:Olfactory Art for speedy deletion

I'm an olfactory art specialist trying to start a Wikipedia entry for Olfactory Art, so far a glaring omission on Wikipedia in terms of art. I started with a paper I wrote on the topic as part of my postgraduate research. My first submission was declined for copyright violation; so I worked with the admin who deleted it, Diannaa, to grant Wikipedia permission to copy the material. The admin then restored it and put a note clarifying that "This submission has now been cleaned of the above-noted copyright violation and its history redacted by an administrator to remove the infringement. If re-submitted (and subsequent additions do not reintroduce copyright problems), the content may be assessed on other grounds." But then you placed a tag on the draft requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. Could you please remove that? I'm trying to offer my own research and expertise as a basis for a non-existent but much needed Wikipedia article, yet I seem to be caught in a vicious cycle of bureaucracy and absurdity! Thank you. Archmemory (talk) 10:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Transversotrema atkinsoni
added a link pointing to Heron Island
Transversotrema borboleta
added a link pointing to Heron Island
Transversotrema espanola
added a link pointing to Heron Island
Transversotrema witenbergi
added a link pointing to Heron Island
Werner G. Krebs
added a link pointing to Parallel processing

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Request on 04:51:58, 4 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by TheWriterInMe


Hi, it would be helpful if you could point out the particular section which lacks referencing.

Dhiraj Singh (talk) 04:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The decline rationale was not per lack of referencing, but rather not meeting our notability guideline. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Author

You wrote: Possibly passes WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tino_Sanandaji Exactly what do you mean. Can I do something beside waiting? Thanks!

No, I just meant the comment to serve as a note for future reviewers. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Intifada

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Intifada. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

WiBrugherio: review

I've translated in my sandbox Moncucco. Could you review the article? Thanks again for your collaboration. FrOsmetti (talk) 10:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@FrOsmetti: I've been copy editing that article for a few days now. I'll finish it this week! Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Certification Table Entry

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Certification Table Entry. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

How to opt in for G13 eligibility notices

I see you were talking with DGG about this. User:HasteurBot/G13 OptIn Notifications gives all the details. Hasteur (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Hasteur! I'll give it a go. Cheers, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Jorge

Please help with my submission. The rejection says the submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability.

I would first note that Jorge DeSantiago is a well-known reporter/anchor for Telemundo - a Spanish language network. His biography is not the first television anchor/reporter to be published on Wikipedia. So that alone should make him notable -- as for example other anchors/reporters published on Wikipedia include Rob Stafford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Stafford (Anchor/Chicago), Carol Marin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Marin (Reporter/Chicago), Russ Mitchell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Mitchell (Anchor/Reporter, Cleveland), Jim Giles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Giles_(meteorologist) (Meteorologist/Tulsa), Ash-har Quraishi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash-har_Quraishi (Investigative Reporter/Kansas City) Gio Benitez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gio_Benitez (Reporter/ABC News), Robin Robinson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Robinson (former anchor/Chicago), etc.

Additionally, Mr. DeSantiago is also notable as a reporter/anchor because he made national headlines in 2014 when a murder suspect he was interviewing at a San Antonio apartment complex opened fire on his news crew. The suspect made an on camera confession to an earlier murder, and later confessed to other shootings in the San Antonio area. The gun fire at the news crew is eerily similar to the Virginia news crew shooting -- and portrays the danger journalists often face. DeSantiago won an Emmy Award in Texas for his coverage.

As for viable sources, I've included links about the shooting from WFAA-TV (Dallas), KHOU-TV (Houston) and KENS-TV (San Antonio).

Please advise what I can do to improve my submission.

Stteve01 (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello! First of all, the fact that other stuff exists is not a valid argument on Wikipedia. Secondly, you've not provided evidence (via extensive coverage from independent and reliable sources) he is a notable individual. Thirdly, I haven't found any coverage about him myself, besides stuff he's worked on personally. That is a pretty good indication he's not notable at this point in time. Finally, and just to counter your murder argument, it seems this might fall under WP:N1E. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

New DOB RfC

If you wish, please join in. —Tenebrae (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Major League Baseball postseason teams

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Major League Baseball postseason teams. Legobot (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gary Cooper

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gary Cooper. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sofia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sofia. Legobot (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ceremonial pole

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ceremonial pole. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Tom Beauvais

Hello there, I recently submitted a biog entry for poster artist Tom Beauvais and it was declined. I would like your help / advice in ensuring that it meets eligibility, would you have a moment to help me with the article? I am a poster collector myself and so am perhaps in a position where I overstate the importance of an individual because of my own personal interest. However with Tom Beauvais being one of Britain's best known poster artists and with a roll call of very high profile films that he worked on I was very surprised that the entry was rejected on non-notability grounds. The submission for artists has 4 criteria and I believe that the entry could be strongly considered under at least two of them.

1. "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Tom Beauvais is very well known amongst poster collectors, he has a number of red links already on Wikipedia and google search will reveal many more. The foremost scholarly text on the subject 'British Film Posters' published by the British Film Institute reveals that Beauvais is mentioned on 19 individual pages in the index at the back (the book covers 100 years of film poster art and only two other artists have more mentions).

3."The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Beauvais has created poster designs for many high profile and Oscar-winning films (Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid, Fantastic Voyage, Star Wars, Blade Runner, Mad Max) and he was also the resident artist for Stanley Kubrick for over ten years (working on Clockwork Orange, The Shining, Barry Lyndon, and Full Metal Jacket).

I hope you can help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aroundworld80days (talk • contribs) 13:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, I did not review the article, I merely posted a comment. Secondly, you are right about those two criteria. What the article is missing are references that attest to those facts. You need to provide coverage from good quality sources that substantiate all claims. As it stands, the article relies exclusively on a single interview from an unverifiable source. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Calyx shackletoni
added a link pointing to Calyx
Dow Chemical Company
added a link pointing to Liability

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Schizoaffective disorder

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Schizoaffective disorder. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fawaz Gerges

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fawaz Gerges. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Hindu philosophy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Hindu philosophy. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Malala Yousafzai

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Malala Yousafzai. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Domestic violence

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Domestic violence. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Request on 12:59:28, 17 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Merelcel


Hi. My last edit of an article I've been working on has been deleted. Can I recover the draft so that I can correct it? Merelcel (talk) 12:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Merelcel (talk) 12:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Merelcel: Perhaps the deleting admin, NawlinWiki, can give you a hand, although it having been a copyright infringement means you'll probably have to submit a new draft. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Angel Propps Draft

Hello,

You left a comment on my draft for Angel Propps.It is still up for review so I am wondering why you suggested marking it for deletion?

Also, please understand my frustration.

There are pages, most notably Dena Hankins, which use blogs and Goodreads as reference points. I researched several other articles before attempting to write this and as those articles used those sources and were approved (As they are currently up and in Wikipedia) I had no idea until a reviewer straight out said blogs and Goodreads cannot be used that they could not be. As there ARE articles, most notably the one for Dena Hankins, who seems to have managed to get an article and be deemed notable based on, at the time of acceptance , three references, one of which was a blog, and those references were in regards to--reviews, and nothing more. She has not been nominated for any prizes, which Angel has been, and she has far less works (Angel has nearly fifty--none self-published, with the proper ISBN etc. in place, and so forth.), and Hankins work at the time of her acceptance included 3 short stories and 1 novel. With a reference to a blog and current references to goodreads. Do you see why I am frustrated? I do not see where Propps lacks notability given that notability seems to have been conferred by two reviews for Hankins. And a third review which was on a blog, which, according to what I have been told while writing this article, in not a reliable source. It is truly frustrating at this point and I would really like to know how notability is decided and why Propps, who has been a Finalist for the highest of BDSM and LGBTQ writing awards, has good reviews from respected review sites, and who has a large body of work can be declared lacking in notability when I measured her notability against articles up and on Wikipedia on other writers in the same field. Or why this article should be considered for deletion.

Thank you, DottyDotcope (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It is still awaiting a sixth reviewal. I think we've all (previous reviewers) agreed the subject is non-notable at this time, hence my comment encouraging a deletion nomination so that the draft can be removed from the queue. As for the other article you mentioned, thank you for pointing it out; I've nominated it for deletion accordingly. Be aware that most articles DO NOT go through AfC. WP:EXISTS might be quite enlightening for you in this case.
Reference quality is primordial on Wikipedia, as you'll see in WP:VERIFY and WP:42. Going back to the notability question, no criteria for WP:AUTHOR are met, and nominations to the prizes you mention are simply not up to par with what we're looking for. Also, the number of books "published" has no bearing on notability whatsoever. Finally, there appear to be NO reviews from respected media, unfortunately. I recommend you do not compare articles on Wikipedia, as it can be a very frustrating exercise as you've pointed out already. I siggest you wait a few years' time and reconsider whether the author then passes WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. There is also the possibility that you are being paid to keep pushing this draft, which would explain your fervour. Going through AfC was the right choice, alas I don't hold any hope for this submission at this time. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Angel Propps Draft

Thank you! I do see your point and I really wish I was being paid to write this. :) No, Angel is a huge figure in our community and I respect her, and as I said, I did read so many articles and wrote this one according to the way those were written and so forth. I appreciate your explanations, and thank you for your time. Dotcope (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Dotty

I do hope you continue to edit the encyclopaedia, perhaps via improving some existing articles. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Non-administrator Arbitrators RfC

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Non-administrator Arbitrators RfC. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Umpqua Community College shooting

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Umpqua Community College shooting. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Question About Article Draft

Hello. The draft for the Wikipedia page I have been trying to create was just denied and I have a few questions. The previous three times is was not accepted were things that I was able to fix – statements were unsourced, citations weren't written correctly - but this is the first time I am hearing anything about notability. The most current reason states that the sources do not show notability; however, I have provided a plethora of reliable, independent sources such as magazines, web-based magazines, newspaper articles and websites about the topic. I guess I am just confused because I see many Wikipedia pages on a daily basis that do not have half of the sources that my draft has and I am wondering why this would be the case and how those articles could have been approved and my draft was denied. Any help you could provide would be appreciated. Thank you for your time! VMetalMedia (talk) 06:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem isn't the amount of sources, but their quality. The references provided are rubbish. For future reference, see WP:IS, WP:IRS, WP:42 and WP:VERIFY for information on the kind of sources we strive for. It also appears the artist is not notable at this time, either generally or per our specific music criteria. You can opt to wait a few years and submit a new draft if she ever fulfills any of the notability criteria. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Larter

Hi I am writing because you have rejected a draft written by a colleague

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pat_Larter

I am wondering what is your knowledge of the recent history of contemporary art from the 1960s onwards also the sources that have been used include the Conversation which is an international journal of commentary on major cultural and political issues published in several countries and in several languages, the major journal Art and Politics and a website from the university of Western Australia and the Lomholt Mail Archive one of the world's best collections of mail art for the importance of Mail Art see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_art and Pat was globally renowned as one of the key women in the Mail Art Movement I am a little concerned about the knowledge base from where your evaluations of notability come from - I am a curator and an art/design historian/theorist in Australia and I know the history of art in my country and globally very well I will send these links through to the art portal too - as I think that the notability criteria could also be evaluated in that context too

these are all verifiable and reliable public sources - the subject is dead and none of the articles have been written by her or her immediate friends and family

Bebe Jumeau (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Your doubts are justified, however at Wikipedia we have policies and guidelines that make such judgements easier. The one that applies to artists can be found at WP:ARTIST, and as you'll appreciate the subject of the article does not fulfill any of its criteria, not to mention our general notability guideline. As such, the submission was rejected. It is plausible that given the obscure nature and coverage regarding such artists, establishing notability would be quite a daunting endeavour. Feel free to request expert reviewal at the pertinent WikiProject. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Merelcel

Please talk to user:Merelcel about his draft for "the Lost Son" novel, okay? Thanks. DS (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@DragonflySixtyseven: You didn't answer why you deactivated the speedy tag. The user seems unable to comprehend the page was blanked due to it containing a significant portion of this site. I've already stated it thrice to them, and requested your comments; you throwing me the ball back without even looking into the issue won't solve anything. If you look at the above post, I've been already discussing the matter at hand with Merelcel. Cheers, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC) Now that I've found all the relevant discussions, let's please move on. Merelcel, either resubmit or not (without copied material). DS, thank you for your help. Now let's continue editing elsewhere. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:War in Donbass

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:War in Donbass. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Plague crosses (Brugherio)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

14:08:45, 18 November 2015 review of submission by 78.146.107.61


It has just come to my attention that you decided to delete my latest submission for The Lost Son (a novel). I very much object. There exists absolutely no justifiable reason for your claim that this page/submission contains any copyright infrigements. Surely, before you declare yourself judge, jury and executioner of what is acceptable and/or consists of copyright infrigement, and in so doing in effect resort to censorship, you ought at least to provide a reasoned explanation if not actual evidence for your decision, and not take cover behind unfounded nebulous claims. This is very troubling, most appalling and absolutely unnacceptable. Please advise.78.146.107.61 (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid our copyright violation checking tool revealed an 80% match with the specified page. See WP:COPY for more information on what you can do to avoid this from happening. Also be aware Wikipedia is not a democracy nor a dictatorship. We work with in-house policies and guidelines, as well as several codes of behaviour. Do not direct your ignorant claims at me. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. However, it is hardly suitable to the occasion, nor, for the record, did I "direct ignorant claims at [you]"; for you to accuse someone of copyright violation (which constitutes a crime) and subsequently censor their work is a very serious accusation and matter, which deserves more than the rather idle claim "..our copyright violation tool revealed..." Once again, the submission contained no copyright violations. Given your assertion that it does, rather than relying on automated software shouldn't you have to provide evidence supporting your ruling? I thank you for clarifying that Wikipedia is neither a democracy nor a dictatorship. However, as self-appointed guardian of our information and culture - who also rely heavily on public donations and contributors - you also have, or ought to have, responsibilities. Surely, to utterly dissmiss the totality of a submission with unfounded unsubstantiated allegations of copyright violation isn't part of Wikipedia's several codes of behaviour - or is it? In the event, though, I take issue with your allegations of copyright violations and, again, invite you to provide a sensible and reasoned explanation for your judgement. Regards.Merelcel (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Again with the drastic language. Wikipedia does not censor, it simply deletes the copied content from its website. The administrative proof is the copyright violation report which showed am unmistakable match between the draft and the website specified. See this for more information. There is no further need for proof - the copy is undeniable. The page was blanked automatically by the AfC Helper Script and for some reason the deleting admin has deactivated the deletion. He hasn't replied yet to my request for comment as to why. I suggest you stop your unfounded bickering and submit a revised draft article which is entirely original, or take your claims to the appropriate venues, given you seem unable to understand what I'm relaying. Head over to Wikipedia:Copyright problems or Wikipedia:Help desk. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


I'm unsure what is meant by 'drastic language' in your last message, or why my request for evidence of copyright violation should be brushed aside as 'unfounded bickering', not least given that what happens to be under discussion here is possibly drastic conduct indeed. Again, no copyright infrigement was committed in the submission under discussion, which troublingly calls into question your assertion that the administrative proof of copyright violation is the copyright violation report you mention, a report which - unless I'm wrong and misunderstood your previous message - was software generated. While you evidently decided that this automated report shows 'an unmistakable match between the draft and the website specified', the fact remains that the two are vastly dissimilar and the draft article submitted was/is entirely original. It's all very well to rely on automated software to detect possible copyright violations, but common sense should insure that, before passing judgement and coming up with sentences like 'there is no further need for proof - the copy is undeniable', judges and juries ought to be made to take a good look at the "real" evidence for themselves, rather than shoot blind. Again, as self-appointed guardian of information and culture, you have responsibilities. If the page was blanked automatically by automated software, as you now assert, then perhaps you should have looked at why the automated software leant that way. I don't presume to know how things are in parts of the world I'm unfamiliar with, but I doubt there are many places where, say, a man would receive a life sentence on the grounds that he was caught prosecuting a crime by an automated surveillance camera and so automatically presumed to be guilty without human input or further evidence required because, according to the camera software and its operator, his crime is "undeniable". Regrettably, though, that's what it appears is being done here. And so again, given that you saw fit to condemn/censor the submission alleging copyright violation, it would only be proper (without further bickering) for you to provide evidence backing your allegations. While still insisting to be provided with the said evidences, I will also, as you suggest, look into taking my case to other parties.

On another although pertinent note, while discussing this troubling and absurd affair with a journalist last night, they thought they may write a piece about it linking it with the terrible current events shaking us all up here in Europe for now (possible title: Between bloodthirsty Jihadists and Wikipedia's automated approval software, how western civilization is being challenged). Would it be right to presume that quoting you without permission would make for copyright violation? Regards.Merelcel (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you blind? It seems you're unable to read the link I provided for you 4 times before, and are trying to hop on a self-glorifying bandwagon that I do not want anything to do with. Remove any copied material and resubmit if desired. Do not use my talk page as your soapbox. I have plenty of work to do. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Security review RfC

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Security review RfC. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Denial of the Holodomor

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Denial of the Holodomor. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The Lost Son (a novel)

Hello fOCUSaNDlEARN. Re your last reply for my request for evidence of your allegation of copyright violation:

"Are you blind? It seems you're unable to read the link I provided for you 4 times before, and are trying to hop on a self-glorifying bandwagon that I do not want anything to do with. Remove any copied material and resubmit if desired. Do not use my talk page as your soapbox. I have plenty of work to do. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)"

This is now the third time that, unwilling or unable to provide evidence supporting your unfounded allegations of copyright violation, you decided instead to be rude and disparaging; can I also ask, from the depth of blindness, no doubt, what kind of notion exactly is "to hop on a self-glorifying bandwagon"? Baffling as your attitude may be, I fail to see the good in resorting to particular and pointless abuse. Again, all I requested from you is to provide evidence of copyright infringement, not some meaningless limp link to some automated software report which, for all the comfort it clearly affords you, makes no sense as the page you rejected and deleted did not contain any copyright infrigement or violation whatsoever. This being the case, one would think that an open and reasonably inquisitive mind would look into the matter - to avoid future unwarranted censure or inappropriate censorship, perhaps, but evidently you have other thoughts on such matters; or are too busy, maybe. It is now plain that you have no intention to back up your allegations with what, in the circumstances, would be proper and appropriate evidence, leaving me with no idea as to what to do to the material in order to get a pass from your automated software approval template. So I guess I probably wont resubmit it. You needn't to reply to this note as I too have better things to do, never mind being abused. This may not be the end of the matter, though. And by the way, just in case you care, no, I'm not blind. Regards.Merelcel (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FoCuSandLeArN/Archive_23&oldid=803572816"