User talk:Postdlf/Archive27

Redban comeback?

Could you take a look at this "new editor" who created the account a few days after Redban filled his unsuccessful unblock request as Redban02, who almost immediately started editing with a Redban-similar path, and confront this edit summary with this, this and this? WP:DUCK? Cavarrone 17:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe. I don't have time right now to look into it, try getting an SPI. postdlf (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

For the record, it was. --Cavarrone 17:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Premature AFD closures

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elkhan Temirbaev, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Risto Mitrevski, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Michigan Bucks season all before the 7-day AFD period closed. As some people only check nominations weekly, we have not yet had a chance to review. Can you please open them until after the 7-day AFD period passes. Thanks. Nfitz (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The consensus was clear on all of those, the issues not novel, and the participants well established and familiar with the subjects. What do you think could have changed in just one more day? What was going to be your argument for keeping? postdlf (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:AFD clearly states that "Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days". There was nothing pressing or unusual about these AFDs. One only had 2 other people comment. You have clearly and unnecessarily violated the guidelines at WP:AFD when there is WP:NORUSH. Please simply reopen the AFDs for further discussion, and kindly please follow guidelines in the future. Because the pages are deleted, I have not had the opportunity to assess whether any argument should be made for keeping, or otherwise. Nfitz (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

These football AFDs are very common and routine. You don't need to look at the state of the articles to assess whether the topics pass GNG or the individuals in question played for a fully professional league, which is why they were deleted. If you can establish either of those things, the articles can be recreated notwithstanding the deletion. If you can't establish either, then it would be a complete waste of time to consider it further, and we don't follow process for the sake of process if there's no reason to think anything would change. You could consider that a WP:SNOW close if you like, but a mere day early is not material enough to even bother invoking that IMHO. As you noted, the AFD procedures even say "normally" seven days. postdlf (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

In many football deletions, only 2 commenters leads to an extension of the AFD period, not a SNOW close. Please re-open the AFDs, and please follow procedures properly in the future. Nfitz (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Risto Mitrevski

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Risto Mitrevski. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nfitz (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooke Fletcher (2nd nomination)

I am not objecting to the close of this AfD, but feel merge would have been a better option (which no one suggested, so obviously it wasn't going to be closed that way). Would you object to me restoring the page, performing the merge, and turnign it into a redirect? --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Merging what content to what article? postdlf (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Obviously the content from Brooke Fletcher would be the source. The target would be Miss Georgia USA, sorry I left that part out initially. It is my intention to merge many of these not-notable/barely notable Miss USA contestants in a similar fashion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

But what content from Brooke Fletcher? Your target has over 50 entries in a formatted table, so obviously you're not going to dump the whole article as it stood in there. I'd be able to better answer if I could imagine what the end result would look like. And it might be seen by some as an endrun around the AFD if you essentially recreate the individual winner articles within each pageant title's article. I don't particularly care, but I think you're taking your chances at pissing other people off and generating drama without first getting some consensus from other editors on how to handle that content, indeed if it should be expanded for each entry beyond the "notes" column currently in the title article. You don't need anyone's permission to create a redirect, of course. postdlf (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

At least one of these (Carrie Lee), explicitly closed as a merge. I'll start with that one to give some idea of what I envision and get back to you. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

My intent is more to caution you about backlash; I'm not planning to intervene in the pageant title article to "enforce" my close or whatnot regardless of what you do. Good luck. postdlf (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Another user modified my !vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queer theology

I completely agree with your closure but I was disturbed to see that a different IP editor had modified my !vote per this diff. If there is anything you can do to correct the record and/or admonish the vandal I would greatly appreciate it. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. I thought something was fishy, though I hadn't seen the history or prior versions; I just assumed it was sockpuppetry. If you register an account, you'll be able to keep such pages on a watchlist so you'll be quicker to identify such vandalism when it happens. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 00:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Cornwall Domesday Book tenants-in-chief

As Cornwall Domesday Book tenants-in-chief was included in the same AfD as Devon Domesday Book tenants-in-chief could you please remove the deletion notice there.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The Unofficial Guides to Medicine

Dear Sir/Madame. I completely support your decision to delete my article The Unofficial Guides to Medicine, and understand that it has been written in an inappropriate manner for Wikipedia. I am fully committed to a substancial rewrite, so that it is unrecognisable from the origional. However, I no longer have access to the original article, and i'd really value this being moved back to my draft folder, so that i can use at least some of the references for notibility as a starting point. Really hope you can facilitate this, and then i'll take my time over a few months to get the article right for wikipedia needs.

Thank you in advance for your help, best wishes (ZeshanQureshi (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC))

Links, please. postdlf (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

On behalf of ZushanQureshi, I am adding the links. Undelete The Unofficial Guides to Medicine, which was deleted by an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Unofficial Guides to Medicine. And then move it to Draft:The Unofficial Guides to Medicine for improvement. - Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa¹²³|UPage|_☺★ (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Content temporarily posted at User:ZeshanQureshi/temp so you can retrieve your references. I will delete it on March 1. postdlf (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Question about deletion of lists

Hi, you just deleted a list about sex scandals. As discussed at BLPN here, there's a bunch of similar lists that ought to be deleted for virtually the same reasons. Do they each require a separate AfD, or can they be grouped in a single AfD, or a single request for speedy deletion? Thanks for any advice.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how those are necessarily similar at all. The AFD I just closed was basically just a collection of news reports of alleged bad behavior, with the scandals themselves (if they could even be called that) not individually notable. The list of U.S. federal polticial scandals, for example, obviously differs on that point. So see what others say at BLPN about your comment there before you nominate anything, and then individual nominations would be the way to go (if at all) because their content and merits vary. postdlf (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the feedback.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Question

How does one go about requesting/setting up a deletion sorting list (e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sportspeople) for a new topic area? I would like to set up a new deletion sort list for swimming. Please let me know. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I've never done it. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting would seem to be a good place to ask. postdlf (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, PDLF. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Deleted Page

01:23, 9 August 2014 Rjd0060 (talk | contribs) deleted page Alpha Sigma Rho (Expired PROD, concern was: Can't find that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Deleted at AfD in 2011.) In regards to this deletion, I am trying to get this deletion removed. The other page created beforehand lacked sources. I would like to recreate the page with valid and credible sources. ChoklatGeisha (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe my Article was notable enough this time

Hello. I believe my Article was notable enough this time however it is deleted without giving me any satisfactory explanation. The procedure i have followed: Make draft, join chat and spend 1 whole day to edit and compose excellent article based on suggestion and edits by experts at the chat, submit draft, draft accepted, draft reviewed and edited by WikiProject_Video_games editor and completely published. Then i ask chat again about isn’t this too much edit? then primefac opens speedy delete then it is deleted without giving me any explanation in matter of minutes. If you check the issue i appreciate ty very much : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MonsterMMORPG . And there were not any discussion it was deleted immediately. One more notice: I checked same genre games articles and majority of them have way more less authority references and even some have 0 references. Thank you very much for your help. OnlineGamesExpert (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I was not the deleting admin; you'll need to discuss it with them and if not satisfied look into WP:Deletion review. postdlf (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Another AFD close question

User:postdlf I am asking you to re-instate the deleted article List of State and local sex scandals in the United States, for two reasons.

First, review time was too short. The article was deleted after only 7 days of discussion. I believe I read that article deletion was an action of last resort. I note that a recent RfC at the companion list List of Political Scandals in the United States took two months to resolve. I would like to have commented on this case, but couldn’t.

Second, a History of long term harassment There are now six spinoffs of the original 2004 article List of Federal political scandals of the United States each subdividing and expanding the original subject. List of Federal political scandals of the United States was already nominated for deletion in 26 November 2010. The result of the discussion was delete, which was overturned at DRV. Note that an editor named Collect was active in that discussion and had voted to delete.

Two years later, on 8 August 2012 at a companion to the original, List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes, an RfC was begun by Collect which, by redefining the word ‘politician’ would have halved the scope of the article. Administrator User:Jc37 ruled no consensus was reached.

About two years later, on 7 February 2015 another RfC at List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes was again begun by Collect which, (using different terms) by redefining the word ‘politician’ would have again, halved the scope of the article. Administrator User:AlbinoFerret ruled no consensus was reached.

What also may be pertinent is a very long discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Collect and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Evidence which included charges of contentious editing and wikilawyering and puppetry. I couldn’t follow all of it, but I did find he was blocked as recently as 2 March 2015 for edit warring. (He has quite a history.) Yet Collect himself has not weighed in on this particular call for deletion.

I also find it interesting that after a six months hiatus, Anythingyouwant suddenly springs back to life and immediately nominates two political articles for deletion. I am no expert on puppets, but I do not think this is a coincidence. Puppets have been noted in all of these discussions, but please note the lack of civility, argumentative style and similar points made by the editors calling for deletion.

If you cannot in good conscious restore the article, or pass it along for further review, could you place a copy of it on my user page? Perhaps it can be rewritten. Polarpark (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Polarpark Just a short note, I am not an admin. Closing an RFC does not always require an admin, but an experienced, uninvolved editor. AlbinoFerret 18:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Polarpark, it is not puppetry, and is just a coincidence (a very minor one at that). But I have been sanctioned for less, so you have that going for you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Do I send this to deletion review then?Polarpark (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the deletion review, but if you do, remove the admin from next to my name please, in fact, please strike it here. AlbinoFerret 18:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I see no basis for me "reinstating" an article that was deleted pursuant to a unanimous and well-participated AFD, which honestly could have been WP:SNOW-closed within a few days but was left open for the standard seven. I could not have closed that AFD any other way. I don't see how comparisons with those other lists should have dictated a different result here (see, if nothing else, WP:OTHERSTUFF), nor do I understand why you are going on at length about an editor who didn't even participate in this AFD. If you do try WP:DRV, you should better focus your thoughts and argument, avoid unnecessary (and honestly confusing) mudslinging, and do take the time to provide the right link to the deleted page and its AFD. Also, omitting "user:" from usernames makes the wikilinks link to article space instead. postdlf (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

==Deletion review for List of state and local political scandals of the united states==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of state and local political scandals of the united states. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.Polarpark (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Bahaman caracara

Hi Postdlf: Back in 2010, you created the article Bahaman caracara, citing a National Geographic article. I've just checked the article (trying to resolve a citation issue that showed up on the WP:BIRDS cleanup list), and discovered there is no reference to this species in it. I guess I'm going to remove the citation unless you can clarify where in it you found the information; here's a link to the online version — where Todhunter shows as author, not editor, and the two authors you named aren't even listed! Not sure what happened there... Help!  :) MeegsC (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

You've apparently missed that the citation says "insert", though you may have been confused by the trouble I had with the citation template displaying the right information, which made only the title of the parent article ("Deep Dark Secrets") display, not the title of the insert ("Blue Holes of the Bahamas") (so screw the template). In any event, the source is the fold-out insert included in the print version, which also has its own separate credits. postdlf (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Only child list

Hey Postdlf. No disrespect to you. It seems like I caused our comments to turn into a soapbox. I'm sorry, I didn't mean for that to happen. No hard feelings, I hope. Cheers. WACGuy (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

List of Caribbean reptiles and amphibians

Postdff...I split reptiles and amphibians Saint Lucia because the higher classes should have their respective pages for each political jurisdiction rather than have them lumped together. WP:Split does say to be bold. You are correct I should have cited the WP:Split properly, and should have kept the article with the more content in place, copying the lesser of the 2 content pieces, but the 20 or so articles should be split for consistency........I don't plan on creating articles beyond what is already established under reptiles and amphibians ....BTW, the Bahaman caracara article is doing just fine with a very little bit of content......I'd like to split the 20 articles following WP:Split procedures being bold if you have no objectionsPvmoutside (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

CipherCloud

There are two odd, very contrasting, messages about a deletion discussion (or two of them?) at Talk:CipherCloud. It seems a decision was made to delete it, but it is still up. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no memory of it, but from reading the linked AFD discussions it seems it was deleted under the first AFD as promotional with no indication of notability. The article was shortly recreated in a form that was different enough that it wasn't tagged for speedy deletion, but instead listed again at AFD. The second discussion found that notability was established, so it was kept. postdlf (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Why was the article "Seth Goldman (Businessman)" deleted

Can you please offer an explanation as to why the article on Seth Goldman, Honest Tea co-founder and TeaEO, was deleted? Feels unwarranted especially since he is a NY Times Best-Selling Author, creator of a $100M+ business and a leader/innovator within the organic food and beverage space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReviewingEditor (talk • contribs) 17:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

If you were able to find that I was the one who deleted it, then you were able to find the link to the deletion discussion. Read that through, including any linked guidelines or policies, and then provide the proper links here if you want me to explain anything, as I'm not going to root around to find out whatever it is you want me to look at. postdlf (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

You will find the answer at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seth_Goldman_(businessman). There are instructions there about what to do if you disagree with the deletion. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Page deletion

Hi there,

I'm wondering why the page about me was deleted? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gavin_Dunne&action=edit&redlink=1

Miracle of Sound is a hugely successful music project with over 60 million Youtube views and numerous chart appearances including a number one album on the itunes metal chart. I have also composed the credits song for the videogame Wasteland 2 (Proof: http://wasteland.inxile-entertainment.com/credits) which for some reason was also removed from their Wiki page. I don't understand what constitutes 'Important or significant' to Wikipedia, the Miracle of Sound project has far more commercial and cultural success than hundreds of the bands/people on Wikipedia. What exactly are the criteria for being relevant?

Is it because I am not on a record label? This is by choice and should not ever influence an artist's cultural relevance.

Here are some proof articles. I would have added them for proof but I'm not allowed edit my own page or influence it.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/this-is-irelands-most-successful-indie-musician-and-youve-probably-never-heard-of-him-315429.html

http://www.eurogamer.de/articles/2012-07-19-miracle-of-sound-interview-mit-gavin-gav-dunne?page=2

Was there a mistake here? Some clarity about the rules would be much appreciated

Thanks for your time

Gav — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miracleofsound (talk • contribs) 19:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gavin Dunne (2nd nomination), including the guideline and policy links used in that discussion. postdlf (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Seth Goldman (Businessman) page

Mr. Goldman is a NY Times Bestselling author (http://www.nytimes.com/best-sellers-books/hardcover-business-books/list.html), board member of the American Beverage Association (http://www.ameribev.org/news-media/news-releases-statements/more/335/) and a known and respected leader within the beverage industry (http://www.beverageworld.com/articles/full/17057/the-disruptors-part-one). Because of these accomplishments it is my recommendation that his original entry be reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReviewingEditor (talk • contribs) 14:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

N (singer) article / Cha Hakyeon article deletion

I created the Cha Hakyeon article (and yes, the same person as N (singer)) and the article was deleted as per speedy deletion criterion G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. I was told to contact the admin who closed the discussion of the first article, so here I am. The previous deletion discussion stated that, "I don't see any reason why this person should be notable outside of his own band, VIXX; the only thing he seems to have done by himself is be on TV a few times and guest in a video clip or two." However, this is not the case anymore. First and foremost, he has had the most activities out of all VIXX band members. Also, this statement was made on January 23, 2015. From then on until now, however, Cha Hakyeon has done a lot more. He has been in dramas, a regular cast member of different variety shows, a permanent guest in a radio show, a regular MC in music shows, a DJ of his own radio show and more. All of these clearly negate the "the only thing he seems to have done by himself is be on TV a few times and guest in a video clip or two" claim that was made in the statement above. The claim might have been true then, but it is not applicable anymore now. And as mentioned under G4, "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies." As the reason for deletion no longer applies, the Cha Hakyeon article should not have been deleted. So I would like to request that this be reversed, either for the N (singer) article or Cha Hakyeon article. Thank you! Seo Yoon-hee (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I see no link to the deletion discussion, nor links to reliable sources establishing anything you're claiming as having changed. Nor do I see a clear claim regarding what notability guideline you think he satisfies now and why. postdlf (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Abe Greenthal Talk page

See comments on Abe Greenthal Talk page and respond promptly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Posen (talk • contribs) 23:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't had any time for Wikipedia recently. I'll try to take a look in the next week or so. Have you read through WP:RS and WP:OR to get familiar with our policies? postdlf (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

TV schedules

Hello, since you argued that our articles on Saturday morning TV schedules are not just on an encyclopedic and "highly notable" topic, but that it's "analyzed extensively in media criticism as a topic in and of itself" whether, say, CBS broadcast The Little Mermaid in the spring of 1995 at 8 am or 9:30 AM, or maybe not at all, I'm sure you can help me determine whether the latest edit on that article is a correction of errors that persistend since the article was created back in 2006, or whether it should be reverted, and if so, what version it should be reverted to. The Big Cartoon Database says there were no new episodes in 1995, which would be consistent with "not at all" (though they may have broadcast reruns); so would this source of dubious reliability, while this one of equally dubious reliability argues for 8 AM, which happens to agree with our content at the time when that source was written. The Disney Wiki at Wikia says it aired in 1995, but not at what time slot, and of course it's no more reliable than the other sources. Huon (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The TV series article at The Little Mermaid (TV series) says it was broadcast on CBS only through 1994, though it doesn't have a citation at present either. I'm not sure if Big Cartoon Database is considered a RS, ask a relevant Wikiproject for input on that. Otherwise, for something from that time period, you'll likely have to consult print sources at your local library, unless you can luck out with an online Google books view (maybe a book about the Little Mermaid character/franchise or Disney TV shows generally, or an encyclopedia of Saturday morning cartoons) or if you can access contemporary newspapers or trade journals in online archives that are likely behind a pay-wall. But the information is unquestionably out there. postdlf (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

HeinOnline

Hello! A couple of weeks ago, you should have received an email from me with a link to a form to complete to receive access to HeinOnline. If you did not receive the email, please let me know. Otherwise, please complete this form as soon as possible so we can process your request. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Reminder: if you don't complete the form to receive access we will need to archive your request unactioned. Please complete the form as soon as possible, or let me know if you didn't receive it. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Changes to Abe Greenthal page

I am not willing to wait much longer. See my Mr. Posen page for my thoughts, including some added today. I would have been and am still willing to discuss any changes, but I cannot talk to silence. I shall soon make changes to see your reaction. I intend to seek arbitration if you use an Alice in Wonderland approach of "First the sentence and then the evidence." I always use the "best evidence" rule; you have not done so. Talk to me before making any changes to what I change, even including punctuation. I have the proof in the form of archival or other published resources to prove what I change, and they are all detailed in my book as well. I have actually travelled to archives in Rio de Janeiro and Recife, Brazil; Berlin, Germany; various locations in Poland; Trenton, New Jersey; and Philadelphia and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. I have not been to the archives in Albany but have obtained a large amount of information from the New York State Archives by snail mail. It is a similar situation with respect to Liverpool, England; Green County, Ohio; and elsewhere. In almost all cases my book REPRODUCES items verbatim with a citation to the source or sources; the book does not merely summarize. You need to invest the time to read my book, and you need to do it now.

It is a shame that you could have had an ally with access to the vast resources at the Library of Congress instead of an adversary. Remember that Rockway does not cite sources and has been proven wrong a number of times in mentioning alleged facts that have been proven to be wrong. That was my motivation for writing my book in the first place--with citations to prove that Rockaway is wrong. My book contains over 400 footnotes, many with multiple citations for the same information.

This is your last notice before I resume making changes. You have had more than enough time and, by your own admission, have not read my book. Mr. Posen (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Mr. Posen: I replied to you above, at User talk:Postdlf#Abe Greenthal Talk page, to let you know that I didn't have much time for Wikipedia right now due to real world demands and asked if you had read WP:RS and WP:OR. You never responded to that. On Wikipedia, it is the burden of an editor who wants to add content or use a source to demonstrate that it satisfies relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and I'm unfortunately not yet seeing an indication that you've taken the time to familiarize yourself with those policies and guidelines. It's also unfortunate that you've taken this as an adversarial process, judging from what you've posted here and on your talk page.

In any event, I obviously don't have the time right now to deal with this in a manner that would satisfy you, so let's look to other editors to help review the submissions you want to make. I'm going to ping @Masem: He's another administrator who I disagree with just as often as I agree with him (so I'm not picking someone predisposed to adopt my opinions), but I respect him as someone who is fair and dedicated to Wikipedia. Masem, if you have the time to look into this, this is regarding a source Mr. Posen wishes to use to make changes to Abe Greenthal. You can see on their talk page and the article's talk page and history what my concerns were, and what Mr. Posen's characterization is of this source, which he researched and authored. Perhaps Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard might be a good forum to review this source? Or we can try to find some Wikipedians who might have particular experience in this editing area (such as 19th century criminals or New York history). If the source is approved by other experienced Wikipedia editors I would of course have no problem with it being used appropriately in the article. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

If your source is as neutral as you say, i am willing to give your suggestion a try. I have read the citations that you mention. Since anyone can change them at any time, there is no telling if they will be the rule tomorrow. Keep in mind that a quick reading of the first chapter of my book will reveal the sources upon which I relied so no one need rely on my word for much of anything; just consult the sources. Since you are far more adept at using Wikipedia than I, I do not understand how you can have found Rockaway to be in error (and you are correct that he was) and yet continue to rely upon him. He is just not reliable. That is the problem with the article. You have cited an unreliable source when reliable sources exist. We are both attorneys if your self-characterization is correct. Why not rely on the best evidence of an event? See my comment on pardon versus commutation of sentence. My book is only about 166 pages long so why not just read enough to see what it is about and check my sources? Please ask Masem to express his opinion. I not only read the two pages that you cite, I even posted a comment about the best evidence rule on one of them so I do not know why you missed seeing that I told you that I had added comments and asked you to read what I had posted. Hopefully is was only due to lack of time and was an oversight. If I see that someone qualified is ACTIVELY the data, I agree to hold off on any changes that I propose to make. I do not understand why you could not read a page or two of my book to see the quality of my research. I was particularly upset when you characterized my work as 'self-published" which it is not although I see nothing wrong with that. A very prestigious institute in New York City has published my work. Please urge other qualified persons to do the work that you apparently do not have time to do. Let's start with Masem. He will have my co-operation if he acts with all deliberate speed, a phrase with which you are presumably familiar. My chief complaints are that you reversed my changes without first discussing them with me and that you relied upon an obviously unreliable source, a characterization that I have explained before. It is a very rare event, indeed, for Rockaway to ever cite a source, while I write very little without doing so, usually in a footnote. Rockaway's allegations of "fact" were my chief motivation for writing my book, and I took pains to prove what I wrote by citing to sources, whenever possible to original sources created by governmental authority. One only has to read what I cited to verify that. By contrast, for example, I do not allege a date of The General's marriage because, despite a trip to Wroclaw, I was unable to verify the date, despite a discussion with the Head Director (Naczelny Dyrektor) of the Wroclaw State Archives. I can only estimate that it was in late 1850 or early 1851. The couple left for the United States not long after, which is verified. 73.129.214.54 (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

"I have read the citations that you mention." I assume you mean WP:OR and WP:RS by this? We call those pages policies or guidelines; which page is which and what that means is explained at the top of each page. "Since anyone can change them at any time, there is no telling if they will be the rule tomorrow." Any substantive changes to guidelines or policies that don't have community support are quickly reverted because those pages are watched by a great number of editors, and you can always look at the edit history of any page to see how stable its content is and who made what changes (see Help:Page history for an explanation). You'll need to have an understanding of the baseline rules by which Wikipedia operates in order to edit here and to understand what underlies the concerns and comments I've voiced to you. OR and RS are two of the most important. And if you don't recognize or agree with what constitutes Wikipedia policy, I'm not sure what your basis has been so far for how you think anything should operate here.

Whether Rockaway should be used as a source is a distinct issue from whether your source should be used. Yes, I found what was in my judgment a clear mistake in Rockaway's statement of Greenthal's date of death, as it's pretty obviously disproven by a NYT obit that predated when Rockaway said Greenthal died. That doesn't mean his work as a whole is unreliable. Rockaway has held numerous academic positions, his book used in the Greenthal article was published by an established publisher, and I've found other published books by him, including at least one published by an academic press. All of those together easily satisfy our criteria under WP:RS. Where an error or contradiction is found, we can deal with that by noting it in the article footnotes, not by simply removing all mention of Rockaway's book as you did. And if Rockaway is (as you've suggested) such a poor scholar that we shouldn't cite to him at all (though it would be the rare scholar who has not been criticized), the fact that his work presumptively satisfies RS means that the presumption of its reliability should be rebutted only by a substantive discussion hopefully involving multiple editors.

On the issue of whether we should use the source you authored... I've been confused by your complaint about the label of "self-published" to describe your own work given that you yourself identified yourself as its publisher when you added the source to the article. That was the red flag that led me to remove the content in the first place, because it is very rare that we permit the usage of self-published sources at all. My removal was done with edit summaries explaining why I undid your edits (see Help:Edit summary), and your edits remain in the article's history should it prove appropriate to restore your changes (again, see Help:Page history) so no work was necessarily lost. I highlight this because some of your comments suggested you were unfamiliar with this functionality.

To my knowledge, your book still has not been "published" at all in the sense that we would normally call a book published (by you or a publishing company), unless I missed that statement somewhere in your comments. You did show that it has been added to the collection of the Leo Beck Institute and they have made a digital copy available online, but it's not clear to me what that means in the context of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which is all I care about here. It's also possible that your own record as a previously published scholar (as you listed here, for example) would make your work pass RS. That's one of the things I would like other editors to take a look at, and in a sense that's more important than the quality of your citations in your Greenthal book itself. Because without your work passing RS you're essentially in the same position as any other Wikipedia editor who says they've done their own original research in primary sources such as birth records or other government archives, and we have a strict prohibition on WP:OR.

I hope this better explains why I think my concerns are valid. I have not made a final judgment, nor does the mere fact that I removed your edits mean that anything has been decided permanently or that anything cannot be undone. I am hoping we can soon get some other Wikipedia editors to help us analyze these particular issues in light of Wikipedia guidelines and policies. postdlf (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

If you would have taken the time to look at my bibliography, you would have seen that I have been published by Scholars Press, a consortium of publishers including Brown University; by Avotaynu, Inc.; and by Gen Dobry (online) as well as Rodziny and a number of other publishers. I do not understand why you will not consult the sources that I have provided before making comments that can easily be disproven. See https://sites.google.com/site/edwarddavidluftbibliography/home/edward-david-luft-bibliography ON a related matter, all it takes is a few minutes to look at the sources that I cite in my book to see that I am not making things up out of thin air. When you begin a comment with "Nobody cares ...," is it any wonder that I would object to your manner? I would not normally write anything in public in a similar vein if you had been better mannered. YOu never have a second chance to make a first impression. 73.129.214.54 (talk) 07:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Since the person whom you suggested as referee has not replied, I would like to move forward with posting a notice to find a referee who has the time. Please suggest again how to do that as soon as possible. Quite frankly, all it takes is a few minutes to check my book for citations to birth, death, commutation of sentence, etc. You would then see that I am relying on published sources of far greater strength than hearsay and mere newspaper articles.Mr. Posen (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Tunisian Arabic

Dear User,

As you are one of the contributors to Tunisian Arabic. You are kindly asked to review the part about Domains of Use and adjust it directly or through comments in the talk page of Tunisian Arabic.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Railway stations in Burundi

Now that a railway serving this country is now under construction, this page, which apparently you deleted, can now be reestablished. Tabletop (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know that "under construction" is good enough, but feel free to take it to WP:DRV to ask for permission to recreate it. Just make sure you have your reliable sources ready to make your case. postdlf (talk) 01:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)