User talk:Jack Frost/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Wikipedia page

I want my page back im a authentic music artist with notable press releases and im verified on google with a knowledge panel please put my page back Ittzsav (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Ittzsav, welcome to Wikipedia. You have repeatedly written a Wikipedia article about yourself, at Ittzsav, which has been deleted. Wikipedia has very specific policies regarding articles about living people, and unfortunately it does not seem that there is sufficient coverage to warrant an article (press releases are not reliable or independent sources). Please stop trying to create an article about yourself; creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a venue for promotion. If you continue to create the article without appropriate sources, it will continue to be deleted, it may be listed as a spam article preventing it from appearing on internet searches, and you may be blocked from editing. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. I understand this might be disappointing for you to hear, however I wish you all the very best. Jack Frost (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Peter Sommer Travels page

Hi Jack Frost, I'm Abigail Palmer, I recently created the Peter Sommer Travels page after profiles on filmmakers Richard Curson Smith and Henry Chancellor. I have no conflict of interest. I used another Wikipedia page for a travel company - Artisans of Leisure, which has no current warnings - as an example, and felt that I kept very close to this model. If you'd be so kind as to explain how you think the page should be improved, I will be very glad to make edits. Many thanks for your help. Abigail. Abigailpalmer (talk)

Hi Abigailpalmer, thankyou for your message. I am curious about a conflict of interest, as your first edits in 2010 were to create an article about Peter Sommer, then upon your return to Wikipedia 10 years later you create an article about him again, as well as his presumably linked travel company; this is an unusual pattern. Regardless, I maintain the view that there is insufficient coverage in reliable, secondary sources which are independent of the subject to support the company's notability; which means it cannot be included in Wikipedia. If you wish for the article to be included, I would suggest identifying appropriate sources which support notability, adding them to the article, then dropping a note at the deletion discussion to let other editors know of the changes so that may be factored into the discussion. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any queries and I will do my best to assist in the meantime. Alternatively, you can ask any questions over at the teahouse or the helpdesk as well. Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks Jack Frost. I promise you there is no conflict of interest. I'm now tied up with family for the festive period but will look again at your request re insufficient coverage. I don't quite understand when there are articles/references in sources such as National Geographic, The New York Times and many other leading publications in the UK, US and worldwide, that notablity can be questioned. In any case, thank you for your offer of help and support. Wishing you all the best for the holidays! Abigail. Abigailpalmer (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jack Frost, looking at this again, I can't understand how it can be said that a British tour operator that has won Britain's Tour Operator of the Year award (the most notable award for UK tour operators), for five years in a row, and naturally been included in the press following the awards, and featured in the global press for many years can be considered non notable. Looking for comparisons, how can Peter Sommer Travels not be considered sufficiently notable if other tour operators such as Sail Croatia, Martin Randall Travel, and Great Rail Journeys have listings in Wikipedia? I'm disappointed to see the page has already been deleted over the holiday season, before I had a chance to put forward any arguments against deletion. For reference, I used another page Artisans of Leisure as the model and thought the references used were in a similar vein. Is there a way the deletion discussion page can be opened again so I can put forward arguments against deletion. This would seem only fair and reasonable. Many thanks. Abigailpalmer (talk) 09:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Abigailpalmer, firstly, notability has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. It is not sufficient for there to be coverage, or for someone to have won industry awards, there must be significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources which are independent of the subject. The sources in the article, in my view, consisted of public relations announcements, industry newsletters, or mentions of tours the company runs (rather than discussing the company itself); significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail. In terms of those other articles you mention, I have not looked at them; I have looked at this article, and held the view that it did not meet the policies for inclusion on Wikipedia and when this was put up for discussion, the editors formed a consensus agreeing with this point of view. The deletion discussion itself can only very rarely be re-opened, and the reasons for asking for this to happen are listed here. Given you wish for the article to return, I would suggest following this advice to obtain the text of the article, allowing you to work on it as a draft to make sure it meets Wikipedia's policies before publishing it again. I will give you a word of caution; should the article be published straight back into mainspace (that is, not as a draft) without the concerns in the deletion discussion being addressed, the article is highly likley to be rapidly deleted (without discussion). I understand that having an article deleted can sometimes be a frustrating and opaque process; should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to let me know, or alternatively you can ask at the teahouse or the helpdesk. I wish you the best of luck in your endeavours. --Jack Frost (talk) 09:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Fetien Abay

Hello Jack Frost, sorry for my earlier too hastily contstructed page on Fetien Abay. I have now totally rewritten, and shortened, the incriminated paragraphs. Would you see it, and possibly remove the copyvio header? Rastakwere (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Rastakwere, apologies for the delay; it appears that this has already been addressed. Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 09:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		Thank you for helping out at CCI. In a short period of time, you've helped closed a super old case and made a huge dent in another old case. Keep up the great work! :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• @MrLinkinPark333: Thankyou very much. Hoping you remain safe and well in these challenging times. --Jack Frost (talk) 09:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Jack Frost!

Happy New Year!

Jack Frost,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 01:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

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

@Moneytrees: Belatedly; a Happy New Year to you too! May it be an improvement on 2020. Cheers, --Jack Frost (talk) 09:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Changing redirect links

On 19 July 2020 you made a change to a page solely to "fix" a redirect see this diff. Please read the guidence in the section WP:NOTBROKEN and the guidance in of WP:AWBRULES "Do not make insignificant or inconsequential edits". — PBS (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC) 8

Sigma Coatings - PvB73

Hi Jack Frost! I'm not sure my reply was well written on the page you wrote your question ref. to Sigma Coatings. Just to be sure you get it - I'm copying it here again. I am not affiliated with Sigma Coatings or PPG Industries in any way. I currently live in Malta where I'm opening a restaurant and a guesthouse. Additionally I am affiliated with Nona.com which is a health app. I have gotten in this PPG related loop some time ago and decided to correct and add the most recent information as well as make the Polish Wikipedia have the translations last year. As I am a history lover and an entrepreneur, I started digging into these ties and decided to make some order. I have even translated a sport event site related to this, because it wasn't available. I will post my employment status on my page ASAP. Best regards, Tom / PvB73 PvB73 (talk) 10:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC) PvB73 (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I was just wondering - do I have to register anywhere if I'm not a paid comntributor? PvB73 (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

PvB73, thankyou for your response. No you do not have to register anywhere if you are not being paid. Nor do you have to disclose being paid / a conflict of interest unless you are editing in that area. Jack Frost (talk) 10:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Jack Frost, Thank you for your answer! I'm not so I won't register anything. Thanks for writing back to me!

PvB73 (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Reversal of move on Wasps RFC

Hi there user. Just to inform you I have moved page Wasps Rugby back to Wasps RFC. I believe the request was made by the club its self (user name is "Wasps Official"), is not the technical move the user claimed, and was made without neutral second hand sources/reference on the page. I do not know how much you know about the history of this club but its name is not uncontroversial. I have added a section to the talk page in case the person that requested either wishes to deny they are the club and/or provide sources that back up their claim. Hope this is okay with you, please reply on my page if you have any questions whatsoever. Skeene88 (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Skeene88, fair enough. Thanks for letting me know. Jack Frost (talk) 10:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Grace Beverley Article

Hi, you recently left a message asking if I had a financial interest in writing an article about Grace Beverley. I have absolutely no connection to her or any of her businesses, nor am I being paid to write about her. I'm new to Wikipedia, and haven't edited much, but I was encouraged to join by a friend advocating the Wikiproject Women. I searched for many names across the Wiki of women I thought matched the notability criteria, and Beverley was one that didn't already have a page. Hence why I created one. I can see that my lack of other edits probably looks suspicious, but I intend to continue editing across Wikipedia, particularly across womens' biographies. My time to do so is fairly limited, but I didn't join Wikipedia specifically to write about one person. Is there something in the tone of the article that suggests a conflict of interest?

PiratePhilosophy (talk) 10:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi PiratePhilosophy, I asked as creating this article was the second edit made to Wikipedia on this account, the article seemed vaguely promotional (e.g. "Both companies' visibility has benefitted from the significant Instagram and YouTube following which Beverly amassed...", "...selling sustainably made and ethically produced activewear and athleisure clothing."), and articles on 'entrepreneurs' are almost inevitably created by undisclosed paid editors for the purposes of promotion. Thanks for taking the time to respond to my query. Jack Frost (talk) 10:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit request on HIV/AIDS

I have added additional context to the edit request at HIV/AIDS, if you would be willing to take a second look. Replicated from the other talk page: I had been looking at the 2016 version, which did not include the "key populations" dotpoint in its "key facts" section. Despite this, there is still a "Risk Factors" section of the report separate and distinct from the "key populations" dotpoint. I feel that the the segment on this page's sidebar labeled "risk factors" should contain the content from the identically labelled section of the report, and that the "key populations" information would be more appropriate elsewhere in the page. Kaphela (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Kaphela, Y Done - Risk factors updated per your edit request, to better reflect the source material. Jack Frost (talk) 07:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Our Samskaras Page

Hi Jack Frost! Thank you for correcting and moving the page to draft. I was trying to learn wikipedia editing and has created the page and published by mistake. Sorry for that. If it is Ok to have that in drafts that is fine. Otherwise please feel free to delete the page if you can.

Thanks. Sushupthi (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sushupthi, welcome to Wikipedia! Your draft is here. Did you want to keep working on it, or was it only a test? If you were intending to turn it into an article, it can remain as a Draft for you to work on, but if it was a test and you don't intend to edit it anymore, let me know and I can ask for it to be deleted. Thanks, and happy editing! Jack Frost (talk) 06:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Kemnay Academy Ting

ayo big man jack frost i done been in kemnay dats how man knows da truth so man would appreciate if you changed it back — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wagwanwys (talk • contribs) 12:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Wagwanwys: Not likely... --Jack Frost (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Reform

Hi Jack, thanks for the message.

The edit on the reform trust page was not a test, I was in the process of updating the page to make it less of a "press release" as the content had been taken straight from the trusts own website and I thought the information is supposed to come from verified sources.

Also, the title is Reform however the company is registered under the name "The Reform Research Trust" in companies house and the charities database.

For some reason, I can only edit a paragraph at a time which is why I was doing it in sections.

Cheers. English Prof 17 (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

English Prof 17, Thanks for your message. When I saw your change, it did not appear to be a constructive improvement and I therefore reverted it. Given you're working on the article in stages, I've undone my change and will leave you to it. All the best, Jack Frost (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Jack! English Prof 17 (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Atul Gawande Biography

I got your message re the minor change I made earlier today. I added the names of Atul's parents, both respected doctors. That change did not require any footnotes. I know the Gawande family personally from my years (2006-2019) as Distinguished Professor at Ohio University in Athens where Atul grew up. I hope you will consider reinstating the changes I made. Thanks!

Amritjit Singh (singha@ohio.edu) Langston Hughes Professor Emeritus of English Ohio University — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:1D00:225A:48F5:912A:4337:8FF1 (talk) 07:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The Post Falls wiki page

I was wondering if you know how to add a drop down menu if you do please reply if you don't I'll keep changing it back to external links and significant people JustItsMeDontAsk (talk) 06:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh and also the guy I wrote there isn't me and I know him he's the top in all of his classes JustItsMeDontAsk (talk) 06:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Rollback abuse

Can you explain this revert? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 15:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

LSGH, completely unintentional! I was using an iPad last night and must have tapped rollback scrolling my watch list. Firstly, apologies for the inconvenience, and secondly, next time instead of marching around wikipedia spraying the words “Rollback abuse” around, perhaps a little bit of good faith might not go astray? Jack Frost (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I would have probably done that had you acknowledged your error immediately, but you only did so more than six hours after committing that error. I was also upset because that was the second time in three days that my edits were reverted in the same way, and at around the same time of the day, for no reason. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 01:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Because I had not the faintest idea that I had done so until you reverted it and left a message here... I'm sorry it's been frustrating, and I hope the next three days are better than the last three. Jack Frost (talk) 01:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Leslie Jones

Thank you for correcting the Leslie Jones (comedian) page move. Pewter917 (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Pewter917, no worries. Now please don't test moving pages again; they're a bit of a pain to fix. Jack Frost (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a learning curve to editing and I'll try to gain more experience as I go along. I appreciate your help. Pewter917 (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Pewter917, there definitely is. Do feel free to move stuff around your sandbox all you like though. And please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any questions or run into any other dramas. Happy editing! Jack Frost (talk) 11:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

With that out of the way, what do you think of the Buccaneers winning the Super Bowl over the Chiefs last night in Tampa? Pewter917 (talk) 11:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Pewter917, I have to confess I'm not in the US, so I hadn't realised that the Super Bowl was even on until I read about it on Wiki... So I'm probably not the one to ask I'm afraid! Apologies, Jack Frost (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

San Diego Conquistadors move

While I do support the move, in the act of moving, you wound up deleting the talk page from the redirect, which constrained multiple threads as to why the pages for the Conquistadors and the Sails were merged in the first place over the vociferous but factually bereft claims of the editor who split them in the first place. Regardless of which title the merged article sits at (and I do think the longer-lived name for the team is the right choice), those threads are important to preserve because the errors remain on the current talk page. Any chance that deleted talk page could be restored as an archive? oknazevad (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Oknazevad, apologies, I missed your message. It was a round-robin pageswap; so the articles and talkpages switched from one title to the other and it all looks present to me? Talk:San Diego Sails and Talk:San Diego Conquistadors both still seem to exist, and I can't see that anyone fixed it in the meantime, or have I missed something? Jack Frost (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I see that now. All good. oknazevad (talk) 08:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Sophia Smith

You closed the move request at Talk:Sophia Smith last week but the page was never moved Joeykai (talk) 04:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Joeykai, I have no idea what happened there, thanks for letting me know!

Sophia Smith --> Sophia Smith (Smith College) and Sophia Smith (disambiguation) --> Sophia Smith completed. I also did a pass to switch relevant wikilinks from Sophia Smith --> Sophia Smith (Smith College). I think that about wraps it up. Jack Frost (talk) 04:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Prince Albert Victor

Hi Jack Frost. You reversed my edit on Prince Albert Victor's page about his potential marriages, specifically the failed match between him and his first cousin, Alix (future Empress of Russia). I was confused because I cited all of them with relevant books and checked it to have relevant information, such as that his grandmother Queen Victoria facilitated the match and arranged for the two cousins to meet, and that Alix ended it, and that Albert Victor was confused and tried to convince Alix otherwise until he met Helene d'Orleans. May I ask why you reversed my edit and what I should keep in mind for future edits?

Jjadaran24 (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Jjadaran24

Jjadaran24, apologies; your note was mixed into another topic on my talkpage and I missed it. I reverted your edit as it appeared to be a significant change to the prose and tone to something less encyclopaedic. It looks like, in the intervening time, the change has been worked into the article and it looks good. Apologies if it was more jarring than intended, and thankyou for your improvements to aristocracy articles, it's a fascinating subject. Jack Frost (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Your Turn To die

hey lmao can you change it back i wanna do a joke abt it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:8580:DF40:15B3:961A:2C4D:91AE (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

No. Jack Frost (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

What the...? El_C 16:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

El C, boring vandalism by a boring vandal on a page by that title. Nothing to worry about. Jack Frost (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Fantasy spam

Hey, speaking of Discworld —I only have one book in Hebrew (and none in English) and that is Sourcery, which I love and find super-funny— but what I was gonna ask you was: have you seen any episodes of the BBC's The Watch? Because I watched the pilot and was, like, meh. Just wandering if I should give episode 2 a chance... El_C 16:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

El C, I have. I'm a big Discworld fan, and I was sorely disappointed by the TV series; I made it halfway through an episode and turned it off. But I also acknowledge that anything other than a faithful scene-by-scene recreation of the books was not likely to win me over, and they changed so much it was virtually unrecognisable... Jack Frost (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I did manage to dredge through the entire pilot episode, and yeah, it pretty much sucked. As mentioned, I've only read Sourcery, so I don't think I'd have picked up on whether it was a faithful adaptation of the source material. But I'd hoped it would be fun and funny like the book — sadly, it proved to be a huge missed opportunity. El_C 09:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Review of Draft:Applied Intuition

Hello! One of my drafts (Draft:Applied Intuition) has been unreviewed for quite some time, I was wondering if you could take a look? RajeshKumar12 (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

RajeshKumar12, I'm afraid I do not review drafts upon request. The current waiting time for drafts to be reviewed is up to 4 months, although it may be much shorter. Best of luck, Jack Frost (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for letting me know. RajeshKumar12 (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

rereview of draft Tanner rozankovic

I am taking a re-review request for the article that I'm working on, "Tanner Rozankovic" because I believe this biography about Tanner is worth an article due to public interest, for this person and that according to wiki guides this person is suitable for an article. In summary here is why I believe Tanner Rozankovic fits the requirements for an article/biography. From years 2016-2021 the name Tanner Rozankovic has been searched on google over 15 thousand times per 3 months, according to Google ranking sites. Tanner Rozankovic has had a wide range of media coverage calculating to videos all together over 6 million views, with Tanner's games and Tanner being the sole interest and focus of these videos. With big YouTubers making playlists with multiple videos just about Tanner, and the biggest twitch steamer to exist "Shroud" even mentioning and playing Tanner's games on videos and live streams, with hundreds of thousands of viewers watching live.

Tanner can be found with sufficient coverage from many notable and respectable sources, from the Valve cooperation all the way to EA Sports and DICE Studios some of the biggest publishing and developing companies to ever exist.

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

Kind regards, Joshua Gooden — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Gooden (talk • contribs) 07:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Joshua Gooden, I have put your request for a re-review in the right place for another reviewer to consider it. You can find their comments here. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 09:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Close of 50/50 RM

Hi. Maybe those closes are best left to admins. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi In ictu oculii, I felt that consensus was clear despite the even numerical split, but noted nonetheless. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 14:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Close of "Ethnic Discrimination in Ethiopia"

We were only made aware of this discussion yesterday at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discrimination#"Ethnic issues in" vs "Racism in" problem. This was still in active discussion. Why was this closed and moved? What is your reasoning for closure? Or for move? Walrasiad (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Walrasiad, you are (of course) referring to the Requested Move discussion at Talk:Racism in Ethiopia#Requested move 19 March 2021, which proposed the move of Ethnic discrimination in Ethiopia → Racism in Ethiopia. The discussion you linked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discrimination#"Ethnic issues in" vs "Racism in" problem was initially posted on 19 March 2021 and the last post to that discussion was on 24 March 2021; so I am not sure why you say "we were only made aware of this discussion yesterday". I also note that the Requested Move discussion has been open for the full 7 day period. In terms of the discussion itself; it was my assessment as the closer that the sole objection raised had been addressed by the proposer and when the arguments were afforded the appropriate weight that there was a clear consensus for the page to be moved. Please do not hesitate to let me know if there are any further questions. Jack Frost (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The user Piotrus opened a discussion on WikiProject Discrimination, and did not inform people there was simultaneously an actual RM discussion going on at at "Ethnic Discrimination in Ethiopia". Many of us were deceived into assuming the main discussion was in WikiProject and that this was preliminary to a move request. The existence of an actual move request was only alerted to us yesterday by user Boud. So participation has been divided up to then, and only properly started yesterday. You cut it too abruptly. This was prematurely closed and should be reopened. Secondly, I am curious about your criteria, since not a single RS was produced (and great RS doubts expressed both by Boud and myself, which had yet to be answered). On what basis did you think there was support for the move? Why did you not outline your criteria in your closing comments? Walrasiad (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Walrasiad, Please don't use the royal "we", and please don't accuse others of deceiving you and such. Also, in my initial post in the WikiProject on March 19th I announced "I will be proposing four 4RMs for the affected articles momentarily." Not that notifying a WikiProject on a talk page is required anyway. The closer did nothing wrong - except closing the discussion with a verdict you may not like. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Walrasiad, firstly that appears to be a matter of some contention per Piotrus' comment above, nor are they under any obligation to notify Wikiprojects of RM discussions. Secondly, the discussion was open for the minimum time period of 7 days, in which time a clear consensus (to my reading) had emerged amongst the participants which precludes relisting the discussion ("Relisting is an option when a discussion cannot otherwise be closed, usually due to lack of consensus."), noting that there is no minimum participation required for an RM discussion. Acknowledging the objections raised by yourself and Boud; I held (and continue to hold) the view that these were addressed by the participants sufficiently to establish that the consensus remained clear for the article to be moved. Thirdly, closing comments are optional and I had not felt them necessary in this case (although I may do so more in the future). Overall, at this time I stand by my assessment of consensus and therefore decline to re-open the discussion. Should you maintain the view that the closure was inappropriate, inconsistent with policy, or wrong; then you have the option to seek an uninvolved administrator to overrule my closure, or to list the discussion at Move Review, noting that to do so you must establish that the closure either (1) "...did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI..." or (2) "... was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion...". Should you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to ask. --Jack Frost (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Obligation? Perhaps not. But it would have been the minimum of honesty in opening one discussion in one place to alert that another discussion on the same topic (particularly an RM he initiated) was going on elsewhere at the same time, and invite the same participants there. He did not do so.

His note above on the contrary merely communicates his intention to open it in the future, insinuating after the conclusion of the WikiProject discussion, not that he has already opened it. It is misleading at best, dishonest at worst.

I assumed good faith, and participated in a discussion in one venue, awaiting his answers patiently there, unaware he had already initiated an RM and was conducting the same discussion elsewhere.

On your "assessment", Piotrus cited no criteria and provided no RS evidence, for the move. Nobody else provided arguments or evidence in support. Late as my arrival was, I objected and objected strongly. Bund & I provided arguments and evidence from RS's. Piotrus gave false evidence he didn't even read. You think he addressed my criteria of 318 articles? He didn't even get a chance to answer before you closed it! How did you conclude there was a "clear consensus"?

While seven days is standard, if there is an on-going discussion and contention still in progress, re-listing is the usual route. You may have been genuinely oblivious to the on-going WikiProject discussion, I can't fault you for that. But you could not ignore that a strong contention was opened on the seventh day. Had you paid attention to the dates, you should have stayed your hand and let it play out. It was a premature closure.

Closing comments would have been informative of the criteria you used, particularly since the move was contested. I wouldn't have needed to come protest here at your talk page asking to know it.

I still don't see what criteria you used to conclude there was a consensus. Since you decline to re-open, I will have to ask for a move review. Walrasiad (talk) 12:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

ini archibong's new wikipedia page

hi Jack Frost! I have not been paid to write this article, is there some way I can prove this? I've worked really hard compiling all this information and was looking forward to uploading it today. not sure what to do :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electriclamb (talk • contribs) 12:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Since you moved some related articles

Can you take a look at Talk:Ethnic_issues_in_China#Requested_move_19_March_2021? 9 days since last comment, consensus seems pretty clear to me... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Mamadi Camara

Hi Jack Frost, I saw that you relisted Talk:Mamadi_Camará#Requested_move_26_March_2021. Given that 5 of the 6 involved stated they supported Option 2 (most listed 2 options of the 4 they liked without preference), wouldn't that suffice similar to how Talk:Aurora FC (Canada)#Requested move 13 July 2020 was closed, with the double votes considered? RedPatchBoy (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

RedPatchBoy, Agree, I clearly misread some of the !votes. Reverted. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Moving Donbas

Hi, I believe that the community hasn't had a chance to weigh in on the proposed renaming. The change has not been announced at relevant wikiprojects (Ukraine, Russia, Eastern Europe) and consequently there were very few participants. This is a contentious change, and considering that the evidence for the new name was far from overwhelming I think it would be better to re-open the discussion. Alaexis_¿question? 15:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Alaexis, there is no reason that any Requested Move has to be announced at Wikiprojects, nor is there any minimum number of participants for an RM discussion. There was unanimous consensus amongst the editors and they appeared to rely upon policy and evidence in their discussion. Please let me know if you have any other questions, as unless there is something I've missed I see no reason to relist this RM discussion. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

What happened here?

Talk:Racism in Japan exists all fine after the move but I noticed we now also have a fork Talk:Ethnic issues in Japan? Also despite the archive move to Talk:Racism in Japan/Archive 1 the link in the box is broken... Not complaining - thanks for maintenance - just reporting errors, since the reward for good work is... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus, that is... odd. I've fixed the link to the archive and redirected Talk:Ethnic issues in Japan to Talk:Racism in Japan, as it is clearly duplicate content from technical weirdness. Thanks for letting me know, Jack Frost (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Cleaning up after RMs

Hi and thank you for closing the RM at Talk:Varna. You're probably aware of the long list of possible actions to take after the close of an RM listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Cleaning up after the move. Still, some points are worth re-iterating.

In moves that result in a change of topic structure, it's particularly important to have a look at the incoming redirects, as some of them will likely need to be repointed to the moved article (like Варна or Odessus in this case – you don't need to worry about them: I'm in the process of dealing with them now).

The links from navigational templates should also ideally be fixed – the direct link in a navbox allows it to be displayed with the appropriate formatting if used on the linked article. Fixing it is also quite helpful in moves of a dab page to the primary title as it will make it a lot easier for the people who come to fix the dablinks. This is because the "What links here", which the dabfixers use, does not differentiate if the links come from the text of an article or from a navbox used on that article. Consequently, the "what links here" will be cluttered with all the pages that transclude the relevant navboxes, and because changes to a navbox take time to propagate to all articles that use it, the list will remain cluttered for some time (often hours, sometimes days) after the navbox links are fixed.

Also, and much less importantly, changes in a primary topic involve changes in the layout of the first sentence of the disambiguation page: MOS:DABPRIMARY (Buidhe has already done that for Varna [1]). – Uanfala (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Uanfala, thanks for your message. I am aware of the post-move cleanups page, however a reminder of salient points is always appreciated. Immediately post closing the move discussion for Varna, I began undertaking the post-move cleanup (1 minute later). However, over the next 30 minutes I almost continually edit-conflicted on a range of pages with Buidhe whom appeared to be undertaking cleanup. Given the futility of continuing to edit-conflict with no apparent benefit, I elected to leave them a message indicating that I would leave the cleanup to them from there given their apparent intent to complete it, and encouraging them to contact me should I be able to assist. Please do not hesitate to let me know if there are any queries. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 23:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah, so that's why! Sorry then: before undertaking such a lengthy outpouring as above, I should have first checked carefully if that was needed. In the past, I've often had to clean up after RMs closed by admins or editors who, though venerably experienced in other areas, sometimes fail to appreciate the extent of the legwork involved here, so I was rather quick to jump to conclusions. – Uanfala (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Uanfala, please don't be sorry; you politely (and very reasonably) pointed out a possible error, whilst providing helpful information to enable it to be addressed. Thankyou (and I do mean this) for taking the time to raise this and in pointing out something which must be endlessly irritating in such a collegiate and helpful way. Cheers, Jack Frost (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Review draft of Eric Deters

Hi Jack Frost, hope you're doing well. if you don't mind can you please review the draft I created Draft:Eric Deters. The subject has a lot of independent news media coverage. Thank you RASSIOPEIA (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Cookie

Thank you for your assistance. I highly appreciate it. UserNumber (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Jack Frost:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

Dew of Hope Deletion

Thank you so much for your message at Talk:Dew of Hope Foundation. I appreciate all the efforts to make Wiki a great tool to share and exchange knowledge. I am aware that whilst we must uphold the policies of the platform, efforts are encouraged to magnify knowledge and not to be unduly censorial. I quite agree and always welcome second opinions on all contents to be sure they are presented in the most dispassionate manner, however, we cannot always achieve that with speedy deletion. It took less than 25 minutes to flag and delete the content even when it can be optimally edited.

If you please, undo the deletion to allow me to represent the page in a consistent and compliant manner.

I remain most obliged. Ckchurchyll

• Hello Ckchurchyll, as was pointed out to you on your talkpage; the article was clearly promotional in relation to the foundation. I tagged it for deletion and the reviewing administrator agreed and pointed this out to you when they deleted the article (which you then deleted from your talkpage). If you wish for the article to be restored, then I would suggest asking the deleting administrator, although I note you have already recreated the article as a draft. However, as has now been pointed out to you three times now; Wikipedia is not a place to promote organisations or article subjects. I must also ask, do you have a relationship with Dew of Hope Foundation? Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 01:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Jack, yes I do have a relationship with the Foundation. Ckchurchyll (talk) 06:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

However, I also maintain my objectivity as I have with every article that I have improved here. Ckchurchyll (talk) 06:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Ckchurchyll, then you must comply with Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guidelines. I can see that another editor has left a link to these policies on your talkpage already. Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 08:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I will sure do so. Much obliged. Ckchurchyll (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Amy Kavanagh

You and Kookkee Monster each started a draft about Amy Kavanaugh (Draft:Amy Kavanagh and Draft:Dr. Amy Kavanagh) within a day of each other. Kookkee's has been declined three times, but at the time of the third decline had more content and more refs than your yet-to-be-submitted draft. I suggest the two of you collaborate to improve Draft:Amy Kavanagh before reaching a joint decision to submit it to AfC. Good luck. David notMD (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Huh, whaddaya know. I was really just noodling about seeing if there was enough to scrape together an article. I might have a play with these two again. Thanks! --Jack Frost (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

New page about Veygo

Hey Jack. I have updated the link references to include website, date & author where possible. I hope that helps solve the link rot issue.

I have also found these references that might be more suitable as they include publish date and author. Would it be worth me adding these to the page?

• https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/reports/a31776027/nhs-staff-discounts-coronavirus/
• https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/5621898/how-travelling-just-five-miles-more-could-double-your-chance-of-passing-the-driving-test/
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/advisoruk/2020/08/06/car-insurance-and-driving-habits--gearing-up-for-change/

Thanks Jos

@J05Davies: Thanks for your message, and apologies for the delay. Unfortunately, those articles suffer from the same problem as the existing sources; they do not provide sufficient in-depth coverage of the company to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for when we should have an article about a company. You can read more about these guidelines at WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. It also looks like other editors agreed there was insufficient coverage as they agreed that the article should be removed and a redirect created to the parent company at a deletion discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veygo. I understand this can be frustrating, please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 03:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

30 July 2021

Hey, I'm afraid you forgot to move the associated talk page. Colonestarrice (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey Colonestarrice, that's weird; should be all fixed now. Thanks for letting me know! --Jack Frost (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome and thanks for fixing it. Colonestarrice (talk) 13:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Article name change of Over the Top (Smiley song)

Hey man, I see you corrected my error from making the (Smiley song) uppercase on both. Thanks a lot, but I also noticed that you changed the name of the song and article to "Over the Top" instead of "Over The Top". I see this is a common mistake in many other articles online about the song. If you look on Spotify, Apple Music, or any official chart website you can see the 'The' is capitalized. I would appreciate it if this would be corrected. Thanks a lot, 1xKingVamp^TalkToMe 15:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello 1xKingVamp, my apologies for the delay (to be honest I missed your message). I, and another person, moved the page following a request at the technical requests page Given it was an undiscussed move, it can certainly be reverted. The easiest way (so all is above board given two were involved in the move) is for you to copy this text: {{subst:RMassist|Over the Top (Smiley song)|Over The Top (Smiley song)|reason=YOUR REASON HERE}} to here, and someone will be able to do so for you. --Jack Frost (talk) 03:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Diana Butler OAM

Hi Jack,

Thank you kindly for your work on the Diana Butler OAM page. I would, however, like to contest your decision that it is 'promotional' as it cites multiple independent sources including the Australian Broadcast Commission (ABC), The Examiner, The Mercury and others. Ms Butler is a public figure and there is just cause for my creation of a page for her which was determined as needed after my edits on the factual inaccuracies of organization page Care for Africa which features dead people as still alive and incorrect dates of founding as well as false information about the organization claiming it works in Kenya, which it does not.

Please reconsider your decision to cull the page entirely and rather advise me on what you consider to be self promotion.

Please see the following examples of the genre for humanitarian and public figures and companies from the same community.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Evans_(humanitarian) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Hodgman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graeme_Murphy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Foley_(artist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Baker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roelf_Vos

These are the genre guidelines I have followed. I am trained as a journalist and historian and am contributing these articles as a volunteer without commercial connection to any persons or groups.

Best, Worldsendart Worldsendart (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Worldsendart, I nominated the page for deletion under the criteria of being unambiguously promotional, as it appeared so irrevocably promotional of the subject that it would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as an encyclopedia article. This nomination was reviewed by Bbb23, an administrator, whom appears to have agreed with my nomination and therefore deleted the page. Should you wish for the page to be restored, then you will need to discuss this with Bbb23 as the deleting administrator. If you try to discuss but are still unable to resolve the issue on their talk page, it should be raised at Wikipedia:Deletion review. I hope that this is helpful, Jack Frost (talk) 02:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi JAck,

Thank you so much for your input and your time. I look forward to reviewing the work and resubmitting a version in the future that is ocmpliant with wikipedia's guidelines.

Best, Worldsendart

Kestrl review

Hi Jack, thanks for taking the time to review the Kestrl page. I've taken the time to add in some more sources, all of which are written by independent organisations external to Kestrl as a company (mainly news organisations). I've also removed some of the wording that made it appear advertisement like.

Please let me know if there's anything else I can do to help with approval.

Thanks

Areeb

Already deleted as G11. --Jack Frost (talk) 03:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Shahrbanou Tadjbakhsh proposed deletion: fostering constructive collaboration

Jack Frost: Thank you for closing out the issue of whether to delete the entry on Shahrbanou Tadjbakhsh. I wonder if you could help further, without much more effort, but more widely. I've been working on Wikipedia for some years and have found all too many Wikipedians who barge into entries with a burst of negative criticism – and suck up lots of time from others, while throwing their weight around with arcane knowledge of not-very-clear Wikipedia guidance... If people like that were to try to fix what they felt broke – first – rather than pontificate and threaten, my experience says that Wikipedia would prove a far more satisfying effort for more people. Would you agree? In which case, do you know how to promote such constructive, collaborative behaviors? - Aboudaqn (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Aboudaqn, yes, this can be incredibly frustrating. I'm afraid I don't know how to promote this, other than trying to 'set an example' for others of civility and good faith, hopefully bringing up the entire experience for all. In some ways though, this was an example of our processes doing what they were supposed to; an editor felt that the page did not meet Wikipedia's guidelines, they nominated it for deletion, and the editors involved formed a consensus that the page should instead be kept; bureaucracy, but a civil and productive one. Best of luck in your endeavours, --Jack Frost (talk) 03:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed: set the example. Thank you for your kind words - Aboudaqn (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Deborah Santana Deletion

Hi Jack,

Thank you for reviewing the page I created for Deborah Santana and alerting me to the issues with it. To answer your first question regarding conflict of interest, yes, I do have an external relationship with the subject as I am Deborah Santana's web designer. Would it be sufficient for me to disclose that information on my main user page as well as the article talk page, as directed here, or is there something else I should do as well to address that issue? Also, regarding the copyright issue, Deborah owns the rights to the text displayed on cinnamongirl.org/debr and licensed it to them to use on their website. I have done some research and it looks like if we follow the directions on this page and send an email granting permission from an address associated with the original publication cinnamongirl.org/debr to permissions-en@wikimedia.org using this template and then place {{OTRS pending}} on the article's talk page, that will be sufficient? I greatly appreciate your help and look forward to your response.

Thank you very much, Moviecat (talk) 02:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Moviecat, you should follow the information on that page regarding disclosure of a conflict of interest, I would also strongly suggest that you read the information at WP:COI before editing further. I can see that an email has been sent already to permissions-en@wikimedia.org releasing the content under a compatible licence, and the page has been undeleted. Please don't hesitate to let me know if there are any questions. Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 04:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jack, thank you so much for your help, it is greatly appreciated! --Moviecat (talk) 04:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Response regarding Weava being moved to "draft"

Hi Jack Frost,

I'm new to Wikipedia so I'm not sure if I'm following correct procedures by typing here or whether I should be replying elsewhere regarding your comment and change about my article (please let me know if I should be messaging elsewhere). I'm really excited about contributing to Wikipedia, which has been a goal for a long time, and hope to make lots of contributions going forward, though I'm definitely a bit disheartened by the fact that my article was moved to draft, but oh well I'll learn and improve.

As for the quoted reasons why you moved the article to draft, is there any chance you could more specifically point out issues with it? I.e., Most of the sources I used were independent, though I could definitely make it exclusively independent if that's a requirement - I just took reference and inspiration from how other software-related Wikipedia articles were structured and cited. Any other feedback would be greatly appreciated so that I can make future articles better from the get-go.

What is also worth pointing out is that there was a flagged information gap that I sought to help fill regarding "web annotation" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_annotation) where it asked contributors to "Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information" - which is what spurred the creation of my Weava article as I was surprised that many much smaller similar tools were mentioned (and had their own Wiki article), but not Weava.

Hoping to hear from you soon.

TowerBright (talk) 09:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi TowerBright, and welcome to Wikipedia. For something to be 'notable', which is Wikipedia's way of saying something meets the threshold of having an article in this online encyclopaedia, it needs to have received ...significant coverage in reliable secondary sources which are independent of the subject. If we look at the 8 sources in the article:

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/weava-highlighter-pdf-web/cbnaodkpfinfiipjblikofhlhlcickei	Listing on Chrome app store	Written by company	~	✘ No
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/weava-app/id1451423065	Listing on Apple app store	Written by company	~	✘ No
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341325988_Tools_for_collecting_a_concourse_and_selecting_a_Q-sample	Review of several tools in a journal	~ Opinion piece regarding available services in Journal. Unclear editorial oversight / fact checking	Tells you how much it costs and how to use it. No analysis. Does not address the topic directly and in detail.	✘ No
https://www.wur.nl/en/newsarticle/Organise-the-information-you-find-online-with-Weava.htm		Tool tips on a university library website.	~ Tells you how it works. No analysis. Does not address the topic directly and in detail.	✘ No
https://www.weavatools.com/highlight-with-weava/	Company website	Company website		✘ No
https://www.computerbild.de/download/Weava-Highlighter-PDF-Web-fuer-Chrome-19082581.html		~ Review in computer magazine	? Review in computer magazine	? Unknown
https://www.producthunt.com/posts/weava		User generated content		✘ No
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/weava-app/id1451423065	Listing on Apple app store	Written by company	~	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

We can see that there are none which support notability. For the article to be published you will need to find better quality sources. Also, do you have any connection to the app or the company which publishes it? Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 03:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Clickup

Thank you for your response. You seem to be a bit more friendly than the other 2 editors. I rather I send this direct to you for review, as I feel the other 2 admins are upset with me. Please review what I have to say.

1) https://www.sdbj.com/news/2021/jan/05/clickup-becomes-san-diegos-latest-unicorn/

It is probably the best source, removing the quotations and routine news parts, we are left still with significant info about the company:

Here are sections that are in-depth about the company:

Since its inception, ClickUp has helped more than 200,000 teams and millions of employees lead a more productive life. The software serves as an all-in-one customizable workplace productivity platform that services all departments :across an organization.

....Its clients include Google, Nike, Uber, Airbnb, Netflix, and Ubisoft. In total, more than 200,000 teams use its software for project, time and workflow management.

....By switching to ClickUp’s platform, businesses can improve their productivity by up to 40% saving a day’s worth of time, said Evans.

ClickUp generates revenue by selling a $5 month per user subscription plan, which gives people access to task management software, docs and wikis, chat and integrations with a host of other popular tools

....

ClickUp’s platform also integrates with common business software including Google Drive, Slack, Zoom, Salesforce, GitHub, and Zendesk.

...In December, Melissa Rosenthal became the company’s first Chief Creative Officer. Rosenthal will shape ClickUp’s brand strategy and community voice. Prior to ClickUp, Rosenthal was the executive vice president at Cheddar, a live video media company. Before Cheddar, she served as global vice president of creative at BuzzFeed.

2) Here is the book info that you could not access:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/192860780@N05/51377334912/in/dateposted-public/

It's got 3 paragraphs of info, so its more than just a passing mention and the fact that it is covered in a book that is talking about the software in the workspace is significant and shows they are one of the major players in the project management software space.

3) Citation 5 has in-depth info, not just a news, read it one more time: https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/story/2020-12-15/clickup-raises-100m-as-venture-capital-continues-to-flow-to-local-startups

If you cannot access check it:

Page 1: https://www.flickr.com/photos/192860780@N05/51378889189/in/dateposted-public/

Page 2: https://www.flickr.com/photos/192860780@N05/51378151841/in/dateposted-public/Deeper Analysis of in-depth coverage:

Software firm, which moved from the Bay Area to San Diego about a year ago, makes productivity/collaboration tools including for remote work

San Diego-based ClickUp, which makes productivity software for businesses including tools for remote work, has raised $100 million in a second round of venture capital funding.  

....Founded in 2017 by Chief Executive Zeb Evans, ClickUp moved from the Bay Area to San Diego about a year ago. The company now has nearly 200 workers — up from 90 in June.The firm developed a cloud-based platform that brings together myriad workforce collaboration software tools in one digital place for things like development, project management, human resources, business operations and remote work.

....ClickUp’s platform is used by 200,000 employee groups, including teams within Google, Uber, Nike and Netflix. Revenue has increased more than 900 percent over the past year, according to the company.Evans said ClickUp plans to use the additional funding to boost speed and reliability of its software, as well as improve features and customer support.

4) ADDITIONAL CITATIONS THAT WERE NOT IN THE ARTICLE BEFORE:

All sites Google News Indexed (which means it went through Google quality control review).

https://www.usine-digitale.fr/article/clickup-leve-100-millions-de-dollars-pour-sa-solution-dediee-a-la-productivite-en-entreprise.N1041029 (in French, use google translate, About raising funds, but also has in-depth bio)

https://tech.co/project-management-software/work-os

Https://tech.co/project-management-software/clickup-review (same site as above, more in-depth)

https://www.makeuseof.com/what-is-clickup-best-project-management-features/ (in-depth)

https://startups.co.uk/technology/best-free-project-management-software/ (in-depth review, next 2 are also from this site. Can combine for one massive in-depth review from this site)

https://startups.co.uk/technology/clickup-pricing/ (in-depth review, same as above site)

https://startups.co.uk/technology/best-team-collaboration-tools-and-software/ (in-depth review)

https://www.geekzone.fr/2018/04/19/clickup-le-slack-de-la-gestion-de-projets/ (in french, but very in-depth)

https://www.presse-citron.net/clickup-le-service-de-gestion-de-projet-par-excellence-realise-une-belle-levee-de-fonds/  (in french, but very in-depth)

https://hackernoon.com/22-alternatives-to-trello-for-simple-project-management-qv363w3w (Review, compares with other similar software, Pros/Cons,etc)

https://hackernoon.com/29-asana-alternatives-the-ultimate-breakdown-b2w3yt7 (2nd review from same site above, more in-depth, they can be combined to make one big significant coverage)

https://www.cloudwards.net/best-kanban-project-management-tools/ (Review, compares with other similar software, Pros/Cons,Pricing details, etc)

https://www.cloudwards.net/best-free-project-management-software/ (A different review from the same site above, can be combined in value)

https://learn.g2.com/free-project-management-software (Review, comparison or other similar apps)

https://learn.g2.com/call-to-action-examples (couple of paragraphs from the same site above, can be combined in value)

https://vc.ru/services/187785-edinyy-servis-dlya-komandnoy-raboty-clickup-privlek-100-mln-i-dostig-ocenki-v-1-mlrd (in Russian, use google translate, About raising funds, but also has in-depth bio)

https://www.pcquest.com/project-management-tools/ (Review not in depth, but it's included in a list of 7 Best Project management tools, which is another significance. Peer reviews are considered good)

https://timesofsandiego.com/business/2020/12/21/tom-york-on-business-clickup-lands-100m-investment-round-joins-san-diegos-unicorns/ (About raising funds, but is a very notable publication)

https://www.business2community.com/digital-marketing/17-productivity-apps-to-help-you-conquer-your-world-02422918 (in-depth review and comparison of similar apps)

https://www.investopedia.com/best-project-management-software-5116701  (in-depth review and comparison of similar apps)

https://infotechlead.com/tech/clickup-raises-35-million-led-by-craft-ventures-62001 (About raising funds - you can skip this)

https://techcrunch.com/2020/12/16/clickup-ceo-talks-hiring-raising-and-scaling-in-the-white-hot-productivity-space/ (indepth but an interview- interviews are not acceptable, but it's Techcrunch, anyone getting article in Techcrunch means they are notable)  

https://www.techpluto.com/project-management-tool/ (3 paragraph review)

https://www.newstrail.com/comparing-the-best-mind-mapping-software-of-2021/ (1 paragraph)

Final note: If an article with these many good citations is not notable, then half of Wiki pages posted should be deleted, as there are so many pages with less significant citations. Thank you for your time. Alice Jason (talk) 05:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Alice Jason: You could very well be correct. As this is (largely) a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us. We can only address what we know about. If you would like to pitch in and help us, you can identify some of these other inappropriate articles you have seen for possible action. I'm guessing you're not interested in that- which is fine- but the point is that this does not mean that other inappropriate articles should be allowed.331dot (talk) 06:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Alice Jason: I see you're still trying to get your article accepted by finding other reviewers to annoy, which isn't very nice. If you need help, at least keep it to my talk page or a reviewer who was involved with the review's talk page. Please learn that when an article is rejected, it will not be accepted (especially since the article was rejected twice). There is no chance of your article being accepted, and in 6 months it will be deleted. If you really think that me, and at least 3 other editors are wrong about the article, file a report at the AfC help desk, even though that already happened, and the request was declined.

P.S. Don't just try and get out of the problem by going to other reviewers' talk pages, (as I will simply go over there and warn the other editor of what happened) or by saying that it should be allowed because there are other bad articles published. People make mistakes, and so, some bad articles got in. However, this does not mean that we need more bad articles, does it? Clearfrienda ^💬 22:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Clearfrienda and @331dot Rather than reviewing my new citations, many of which are in-depth, you are straight out stating that this page has no chance and assuming any new citations I provide are going to be low quality. This is why I didn't want you to review the new sources, because for some reason you are being very feisty and I am guessing because I am a paid editor. For this reason, I would like you to give chance to couple other admins to chime in and review the new citations. Is it possible that I can get some feedback from Jack Frost and Worldbruce ? Alice Jason (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

You aren't listening! Having your draft rejected means that no matter how hard you try leaving the same message over and over again on our talk pages, it won't get accepted. It's not a decline, it's a reject. As I said before, if you think you have a problem with me and 4 other reviwers' reviews, please, feel free to ask for help at the AfC Help Desk. For the last time, it's not me who's trying to be annoying because you're a paid editor, you are not listening to what we have to say, because you don't understand that "rejected" means that it will not get accepted anymore ─ no chance. Plesse stop trying to pressure me into accepting your draft by saying stuff like "you're just giving me a hard time because I'm a paid editor", it's annoying, and is certainly not helping the situation. Also, I am not an admin. I don't know why you think I am. This situation has gone out of hand, and now, I will stop replying to this. Again, if you think you have a problem with me and 4 other reviwers' reviews, please, feel free to ask for help at the AfC Help Desk. Clearfrienda ^💬 03:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Besides, you even admitted it. You didn't even write the article. Your client simply gave you a document and you copied and pasted it into the draft, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Clearfrienda ^💬 03:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

This is not the case anymore. First of all I had added new content and revised the original from what the client provided. Secondly after I was notified that there was a copyright issue, I checked and only 2 sentences were the same as the prior version, which I revised. So as it stands, it is completely written by myself. Alice Jason (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Clearfrienda I provided 23 new citations, so this should be evaluated again based on these new citations. If you are not an admin, then please step aside and let's have 1 or 2 admins review. Also point me to any guideline that says once it is rejected, you cannot resubmit an article with new citations, when the citations were the issue. You are just speaking out of your head now. This is not how Wiki works. When a page is declined or rejected you are allowed to resubmit once you have better citations. Alice Jason (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Alice Jason As you have been told before, one does not need to be an admin to review or offer an opinion on a draft. Any editor can do so. Your persistence and refusal to listen to what multiple people are telling you is becoming disruptive and you could be headed towards a block should you continue. You need to move on from this for the time being, now. 331dot (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I certainly don't mean to be a pest or disruptive and I promise that this is my last message regarding this subject, unless my feedback is needed. The reason I posted to the talk page of Jack Frost, is because I was only asking him for a review, since he had shown interest, so it was your own choice and other editor's choice to join the conversation on his talk page. I am guessing that he notified you?? otherwise how did you even find out about this? I didn't mean to waste anyone's time, you have voluntary came here and participated, in fact I rather that other new admins or editors have a fresh look. I have provided about 23 fresh sources, so wouldn't this be considered for a new review? I am guessing that you have already looked but you just don't want to admit that I am right and just refusing to accept that some of my new sources are real good. Finally, the company just informed me that they won some kind of best company award from Linkedin and are expecting more news in the next few weeks. So if after a couple of people review my new sources and page is still declined, should I wait about a month for new news and then resubmit? or are you saying that this page should never ever be resubmitted??? Alice Jason (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Alice Jason thankyou for your message. I'm afraid I do not have anything further to add to what 331dot and Clearfrienda have already said. I'm sorry if this is not what you wanted to hear. If you have any further questions, then I would suggest the Articles for Creation helpdesk as your best option. Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 03:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Sher Mohammad Abbas Stanikzai

I've re-added the pre-vandalism claim to Sher Mohammad Abbas Stanikzai, that:

Having gained a masters' degree in political science, he later studied at the Indian Military Academy in Dehradun, which in the 1970s was involved in training Afghan army officials.

I've also semi-protected the article for a week while the regime change is still (fraught|raw|contentious). Ping me if you disagree. Cheers, Cabayi (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Cabayi! The claim which I deleted was essentially that he'd studied at a 'house of ill repute'... I figured as I was on a bit of a timeline that I'd just remove the whole line as unsourced and ask for page protection given the 'contentious' topic area. Cheers, --Jack Frost (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

References

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

New Page Review queue September 2021

Hello Jack Frost,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for taking out the last two pages in the Steve Pastor CCI! I've been chipping away at that one for months. It's great to see it finally blanked. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: Thankyou, although I fully acknowledge I was just mopping up the last of it after the hard yards were done by you and the other contributers! --Jack Frost (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah, but I left those two till the end because they were the longest and most annoying, so credit where credit is due :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		For doing the fantastic final work on the Steve Pastor case and for your occasional contributions to CCI. They mean more than you think. Thank you, seriously. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I hope to see you around CCI in your spare time; you do some good work and we could really use more editors like you. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Thankyou Sennecaster, that's very kind of you! --Jack Frost (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

ACC

Hey there - I know you asked for an IRC ping but I didn't see you in there. I took care of #307156 and left a comment in the request. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@ElHef: Thankyou very much; that makes so much more sense! --Jack Frost (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Jack and ElHef: Please see my comment on the request. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, JJMC89. Could you ping me when we're next on IRC at the same time? I have a couple of questions. Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 08:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Putinism

The word Putinism is obviously not a scientific term but only a political buzz word. The German-speaking Wikipedia Article also states that this term is only a political buzz word that describes the politcal system of Russia.

Putin himself doesnt use this term nor his followers and the term is used only by American and other Western Mass Media and "liberal" Oppositionist Russian News Paper Novaya Gaseta but not by American or other Western or "liberal" Russian scholars.

The Sources that "prove" that Putinism is the official name of the current Russian political system are only Articles of News Papers that use that term as the name of the political system of Russia.--88.65.185.114 (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello IP, this of course relates to my reversion of your edit. My view remains that it was not a neutral edit to that page, which is a view which is apparently shared by others. I can see you have now posted to the article's talkpage to resolve this matter. All the best with your future editing. --Jack Frost (talk) 07:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Why do you think that my edit was not neutral? Political buzzword is a neutral term and Putinism is only used by Russian "Liberals" and Western Media but not by Politologists.--92.211.154.233 (talk) 08:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Carol Bamord

Hi Jack Frost, thanks for your feedback on my first page on Carole Bamford (It's also my first page on Wikipedia for years). I think I have given you the wrong end of the stick (my bad, I'm new to this). When I say that this was written in conjunction with CB, I mean that we fact checked it with her team. I have no association with Carole personally, socially or professionally etc - I have never even met her before. However, I have recently joined a group of people at work who look to update online profiles for successful women, people of colour, ethnic minoriteis etc especially where they have not been portrayed for their own achievements or where their actual contirubtions have not been properly recognised or discussed.Hopefully this clears it up - there is no COI in this piece.

Where I think I have defintely made a noobs mistake is to not have edited it a little to sound less promotional. There is no intention to promote anything in the piece other than recognising her contributions to sustainability and organic farming/retail practices. I can review the piece to try and make it sound a bit less like an advert although I'm not sure what you thought was being advertised?

Hopefully this clears things up? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duderood (talk • contribs) 14:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello Duderood, thankyou for the background information. All the best in your editing. --Jack Frost (talk) 00:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Reverts

Hi Jack, please forgive the reverts on Albanian–Colombian from these edits, [2] where the template that you inserted was non-standard. – Fayenatic London 15:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Fayenatic london. --Jack Frost (talk) 02:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Yash Thakur(Fitness Coach)

I Removed promotional content from article Yash Thakur (Fitness Coach) if you think it is ok now,please remove the tag if not please do guide me for writing non promotional content.it will help me for my future edits on wikipedia (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realmausami (talk • contribs) 00:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello Realmausami and thankyou for your message. The article remains promotional and does not seem to meet Wikipedia's policies for inclusion. There is currently a discussion on whether Wikipedia should maintain an article on the subject at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yash Thakur (Fitness Coach), and I would suggest you put your views forward there. Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 02:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Advice for Getting Unblocked

Hey Jack. I have been blocked and appealed a month ago. I have written very detailed responses for the complaints posted. I believe my bold edits will become more palatable and no longer be perceived by grounded individuals as disruptive. Still, who's attention should I request here? Sucker for All (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello Sucker for All, I'm afraid I am not an administrator on Wikipedia and so my familiarity with appealing blocks is quite limited. I would suggest you carefully read the guide to appealing blocks and then discuss the block on your talkpage, which I can see you are already doing. If I may give you some advice; think carefully about what you did which lead to the block (not anyone or everyone else, but you), and clearly articulate in your appeal and discussions what you will do differently if you are unblocked so that the circumstances which lead to the block will not happen again. If you cannot identify what it is that you did, and what you will do differently, then your appeal against the block is highly unlikely to be successful. Best of luck, --Jack Frost (talk) 02:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. Alright then thank you. I believe I am accused of not acting collaboratively with other users and that this behaviour has changed. Best regards Sucker for All (talk) 08:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Jon Sine review

Hello Jack Frost (talk), thank you for your input. I'm very new to Wikipedia as you might have guessed. That's why I have to thank you for your valuable input. Though I want to make a statement to your aforementioned concerns. I am not receiving any direct or indirect payments to write about this topic. While writing this article I have tried to keep a neutral perspective on the topic. If there is anything that leads you to believe different I will try to rewrite these sections. My goal with this article was, to sum up the partly widespread information that can be found on the internet in one congealing article. If you have any further suggestions I'm open to hearing them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FallingSparksStudios (talk • contribs) 13:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello FallingSparksStudios, thankyou for your message. I'm curious then if you are not being paid to write the article, nor have another conflict of interest, how you managed to get Jon Sine to pose for a glamour headshot for you? --Jack Frost (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey FallingSparksStudios, thankyou for your message. I'm curious then if you are not being paid to write the article, nor have another conflict of interest, how you managed to get Jon Sine to pose for a glamour headshot for you? --Jack Frost (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey Jack Frost (talk), the photos have been rightfully removed as like you mentioned there was no direct permission to use them. Im not arguing against that. If you followed the path of that picture through the internet you would have seen that they are from a press release that Jon did in 2020. As I have seen pictures of Avicci and David Guetta being used in their articles I would have assumed that they are common property though this is not the case as you pointed out. So these have been rightfully removed and I have to admit my guilt for using them. I will seek to use the option of getting an agreement from the rightholder of the picture in the future if I can progress writing the article.

And somewhat unsurprisingly, user blocked for promotional username & edits... --Jack Frost (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Wrong Infomation .

I had fixed the info that was shared on here about Junior Amone's heritage and with reference, but an error had come up when doing so. The original reference that was posted up from "Jack Whitelock" page was wrong. His heritage is Tongan as I know the family personally. But if you would like to go onto the Mate Ma'a Tonga page you'll see people mentioning him in the extended squad. Alos his IG page has him mentioning Tongan words & lil bro, posting up a Tongan flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.158.188 (talk) 08:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello 124.168.158.188, I'm afraid that Wikipedia relies on verifiability rather than truth. The information in the page regarding his alleged Samoan descent is sourced, whereas the information regarding his being Tongan (as you've suggested) relies on facebook and instagram posts, which are not considered reliable. Is there anywhere like a newspaper where it might have been mentioned? Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 09:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The surprising return of Fantasy spam

Hey. DYK what I just realized? In the Hebrew translation of Sourcery (as written), "sorcerers" practice "magic," while "magicians" practice "sorcery." El_C 16:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Heh El C, language quirks like this give me a surprising amount of joy. That reminds me, I should re-read the Rincewind books again. --Jack Frost (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I was gonna say say a couple of things about the translator, Vered Tochterman, and how she also translated Larry Niven's Ringworld (which Terry Pratchett's lovingly parodizes in Discworld), but nope, wrong Vered. That's Vered Shusman (no Wikipedia page, English or Hebrew). BTW, I noticed that the first Vered's (T) first translation was Tim Powers' The Anubis Gates, which I've re/read multiple times. If you haven't yet, that's a strong recommend. El_C 15:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendation El C, added to the list for this weekend! --Jack Frost (talk) 08:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Miriam Benjamin Third Opinion

Hi, I'm writing to follow up because you had taken the request for a 3O on September 19, and I am wondering if it might be better to resubmit the request or try a different dispute resolution option. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey Beccaynr, huh, I had definitely responded to that the same day I took it. I'm going to guess it didn't save or some other weirdness.. My apologies, I will respond on the page in the next 24 hours. Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 06:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm glad I followed up, and I have also encountered wonkiness when trying to save things over the past few weeks. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jack Frost, I tried to ping you in a recent discussion on the Talk page of this article, and I am wondering if you think it would be best if I resubmit the 3O request or try a different dispute resolution option. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello Beccaynr, my sincere apologies for the further delay. Please see my response to the Third Opinion on the article talkpage. Please don't hesitate to let me know if there are any queries. Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 11:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your volunteering to provide the 3O - this is the second time I've been involved in the process, and once again, the third-party perspective has been a helpful component of building the encyclopedia. I was looking forward to whatever your opinion would be, and I appreciate you taking the time to share your perspective. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Nazia Hassan

Hello Jack,

You left a message for me. I disagree. Nazia Hassan's marriage to Hari Chellaram is sourced from New York records. I am going to amend the page.

During 1990, whilst working for the United Nations in New York, Nazia Hassan had a secret civil marriage ceremony with Hari Chellaram. a Sindhi Hindu tycoon from the millionaire London and Hong Kong based Chellaram family.<ref>https://www.nycmarriageindex.com/ The marriage certificate number is 25916. Please look at the source, It is an offical website. Thank you.Kasim8999 (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Trainee SPI clerk interest

Hi - you previously indicated that you were interested in becoming a SPI clerk. Could you please ensure your entry is up to date, and confirm that you are still interested. Many thanks ~TNT (she/her • talk) 18:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi TNT, I've just updated my entry for the sake of transparency, and I'm certainly still interested! Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Cheers! I'm hoping we bring on a couple more clerks soon ~TNT (she/her • talk) 19:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

November 2021 backlog drive

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. (t · c) buidhe 01:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Corey Worthington

I saw that you requested the Cory Worthington draft be restored, which it duly was. Before proceeding, you should read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Corey Delaney discussion and associated discussions. Any attempt to re-create this article is going to face a very steep uphill battle. You might want to see this discussion on my talk page as well. If you have questions, let me know. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the background Hammersoft; I wasn't aware of any of that! I just know there was a lot of media coverage and wondered whether there might be the makings of an article underneath the inevitable mountain of junk. Looking at the article and sourcing I can find in more detail, I now very much doubt it... --Jack Frost (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• I do too. I'm willing to have an open mind about it, despite lots of prior involvement on this. But, since that one incident in his life, he's not apparently done much of anything to gain fame. Not a failing of his of course, just a failing to provide a basis for a Wikipedia article. One way to look at it; if he hadn't had that one event in his life, and you just looked at what we can find about his life without that, he would be wholly unremarkable. Just another person making their way through life. This is really a classic case of WP:BLP1E. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Gauntlet

You'd make a great admin, and I'm sure others would think the same.. fancy a week of misery in the near future? ~TNT (she/they • talk) 10:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Seconded. Thought the same myself previously. -- Longhair\^talk 10:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime and Longhair: Wow, thankyou both, this is very unexpected! I've thought about it, usually when I'm like "having some extra tools right now would be useful"; but it never seriously occurred to me to run. I'll have to think about it, but given your very unexpected support I'm definitely interested. --Jack Frost (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Definitely do think about it.. we'll see if anyone comes barging in here with bad news, but so far so good... ~TNT (she/they • talk) 12:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Admin material for sure, but only do it if you think it'd be fun and would hold new adventures. I've heard the clubhouse is pretty nice, and has personalized saunas (heated by the admin-confirmation process). They have ponies, an open bar and chocolate stuff, so there's that. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Randy, thankyou and most unexpected! I will look forward to the pony rides (if I pass...)! :P --Jack Frost (talk) 11:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

TheresNoTime - I've been thinking carefully about it (after getting over my initial shock!), and if there were people who believed in me enough to nominate me I'd be up for a run at the gauntlet at some point to see if the community agrees that I should have some extra tools in the toolbox. I'm in no rush whatsoever, and I'd actually prefer to run alongside a couple of others if that were a thing; just to have some company for the week... I'd also welcome further feedback on the idea from anyone else passing by. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Reöpening an RM tainted by socking

Hi, Jack. You recently closed Talk:Andrew Zimmerman § Requested move 30 September 2021 as not moved. Respectfully, I'm not sure I see a consensus there: There were only two participants, both seemed on the fence about what to do, and I'm not sure either gave enough weight to MOS:DEADNAME. More importantly, the IP had been blocked as a sock of banned user SimonTrew a few hours before you closed, and, subtracting his comments, I don't think the nominator's feelings ("maybe move" and then "maybe don't") are enough to close on. (Do you have mark-blocked in your preferences? If not, I recommend it.) Would you be open to reöpening, striking the sock's comments, and relisting (or to me doing so)? Changing the close to no consensus would also be reasonable, but I think when there's been socking involved a relist is preferable. All the best. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey Tamzin, thanks for your message. I saw a consensus between the participating editors in which they both came to an agreement (albeit tenuous) that the article was not ready to be moved and that a redirect should be created. Given there's no minimum participation in an RM discussion; I felt there was consensus enough to close. Given the IP has been blocked, and I don't know that I'd close as no consensus with one participant; I will reopen and relist the RM. Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 10:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hello Jack Frost, I am editing the Paul DelPonte entry. Someone added a bunch of material to it. Is there a way I can move it to my Sandbox while I continue to make further edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OlderWorker (talk • contribs) 13:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

A development at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vhubbard

The alleged master has been renamed. I have left this information at the SPI. Seems like an interesting case to have while training. They are never easy, it seems. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the update Timtrent! It's an interesting one, although this diff did provide a small clue... --Jack Frost (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Just the tiniest clue, I think. "Hey, you blocked me when you blocked them, er, me, er them!" Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Request on 13:46:54, 24 November 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by ECRaya

• ECRaya (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Mir Mohammad Alikhan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Jack Frost. You have objected to the Article Draft:Mir_Mohammad_Alikhan citing that it looks like an advertisement. How so ? An advertisement does not includes any negative articles about a person whereas i have included the article from The New York Times and also a link of his indictment from The New York State Attorney Generals' Press Release. A person has a legal right to have an article about him/her with all the good and the bad. I have included all relevant links about Mir Mohammad Alikhan in the article. I am NOT a paid editor of Wikipedia. I have never created any other article on Wikipedia nor i would in the future. I have no monetary benefit from Mir Mohammad Alikhan. He is a public figure and i am one of his admirers. Please suggest what we should do to get this article published.

Eagerly waiting for your reply.

Sincerely ECRaya

ECRaya (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello ECRaya, any article which includes statements such as ...he landed a professional Job at... the worlds' largest financial services company at that time..., After successfully rising to the top 10 Estate Planning agents within the company..., Starting again at the bottom of the ladder..., Based on his performance...Mir was promoted... during his second year at the firm, The point to be noted here is that none of the Directors on the Board had a compensation given to them. These were all voluntary positions., and which spends two paragraphs mentioning and then attempting to strongly debunk 'controversies' is blatantly promotional. That is, it is intended to act as a vehicle for propaganda, advertising, or public relations. This is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The way to get the article published is to ensure it is entirely neutral without any form of puffery or promotional phrasing. --Jack Frost (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Debashish Bhattacharya editing snafu

Thanks for rescuing me and making that suggestion about oversighting. I've been working on improving that article for more than a week. It had only two citations when I started and was in need of a lot of cleanup, too, copyediting-wise. I just pulled a six- or seven-hour stint to finish it off. My next move was to submit my improvements as part of Wikipedia Asian Month, but I still need to figure out how to remove that "needs additional citations" warning at the top. Perhaps I was logged off because I waited so many hours before attempting to publish changes? Anyway, my next question is: If I request oversighting, will that remove all of tonight's work from the article?Peterh6658 (talk) 10:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Peterh6658, no it won't. If you explain what you're asking for (suppression of the IP address) and link to the relevant diff & page, only the IP address making the edit should be hidden. I actually wound up asking an oversighter to take care of it given how public the teahouse is, so if you look at the edit here, you can see that the IP address has now been removed but the changes to the article remain. The oversighter (primefac) has also dropped a note on your talkpage to let you know they took care of it here. Hope that helps, and happy editing. --Jack Frost (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again, although I'm not sure what the oversighter meant by "next time an email is definitely the better way to go." Who should email whom, and how would that person know where to send an email?Peterh6658 (talk) 10:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Peterh6658: No problems! Oversight requests are managed offwiki (such as by email) because listing the problem on a page like the teahouse or a user's talkpage means more people will notice than otherwise. If you have email enabled on wikipedia, then you can send an email to the oversight team using the link at the top of WP:OS, or you can email oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org directly. They generally respond very quickly to these requests. Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Moving SPI Cases

You've jumped the gun a bit with moving Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FightOfTheLivingDeadFan. This is only the correct title if it turns out FightOfTheLivingDeadFan is actually connected to this case, whereas if it turns out they're unrelated, we just wind up having to move the case back. Most case moves are best left to the end of the investigation. Also please comment your moves, if work has already been done on the case, just so it's clear to everyone involved what's going on. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello Sir Sputnik, thanks for your message. I'm afraid I got called away in the middle of the move and have just returned. I hope my note on the case explains the thinking behind the casemove. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

MetroFibre Delete

Hi Jack (cool name by the way),

Please explain the reason for the deletion of the MetroFibre page I created? The other providers of Internet in South Africa have pages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telkom_(South_Africa) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vumatel). What is wrong with the one I added? It seemed factual, data was taken from the website and I checked it was correct. What am I missing?

I would like to know what I did wrong before I add Frogfoot and Liquid.

Thanks, Brett — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettrussellza (talk • contribs) 13:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Brettrussellza, thanks for your message. The issue with the page was the the content was copied directly from africadatacentres.com/marketplace/metrofibre-networx, which violates wikipedia's copyright policies. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here. Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, can you restore the draft so I can update it then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.32.128.135 (talk) 07:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I can't for two reasons. Firstly, I'm not an administrator so I don't actually have the ability to do so. More importantly, the text is subject to copyright which is why it was removed. It cannot be restored regardless of any plans to edit it. Apologies, --Jack Frost (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)