User talk:SarahStierch/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Four week AfD

Hello Sarah,

I'm making no criticism at all of you, and I'm feeling a bit tired of it myself. But how much more lengthy debate is needed before an administrator makes an actual decision about Michael Newton? I have advocated keeping and improving many articles about fringe topics, as long as they had received significant coverage in mainstream reliable sources. Four weeks in and none have been discovered in this case. What next? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey Jim. People keep telling me I'm not relisting articles when I should, and people are telling me I relist them too often. It's been a little frustrating for me lately :) It can't hurt another week to leave it up. It got a little chaotic and it might be good to have some fresh voices in there. I avoided touching it for a while - it was sitting open in AfD for a few days. I really don't care much about subject matter. I figure another admin can close it next week. If I was you, I'd take a break from the AfD. It was getting a little tense there. SarahStierch (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

As always, your advice is appreciated, and surely waiting another week won't hurt. I will try to avoid further comments, but it will be difficult if someone tries to cite a blog post from the esteemed ambassador from Planet Xylon as a reliable source. I will try biting my tongue - really hard. Thanks, Sarah. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

By the way, if you are criticized by both the "left" and the "right", speaking figuratively, then that is a powerful sign you are acting correctly. Sorry for adding to your burden in any way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indo Premier Investment Management

Hi Sarah. I'm just mentioning that when I went to vote, I found that the discussion had already been closed in under 7 days and with what I would have considered to be a very weak consensus. With AfD like that one, if there is little movement after 7 days, the general practice is to relist. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Ha! I keep getting told I relist AfD's too much. That's what I get for not following my ways :) Feel free to renominate. SarahStierch (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

In most cases, chances are that if an article is nominated for AfD it's not without good reason, and the nomination counts as one delete vote. However, the standard of patrolling is too low for comfort and the error rate of wrong tagging for AfD is quite high, as well as by editors tagging older articles in good faith. It's always best to let an AfD run for its full 7 days unless there is a clear consensus to speedy keep or speedy delete. If there is little movement after 7 days, I usually relist for another seven days. If there is increased movement but still no consensus, I use my intuition to either relist again or close as no consensus which defaults to keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Closing AfDs

Hey, are you using an automated script, or doing these by hand? I've noticed that many discussions that you've closed as keep or no consensus do not have the tag on the article removed, but the talk pages have the old-afd-multi tag. Just a heads up. Ansh666 04:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm using Twinkle. If there is no tag on it....then I am not sure what that is about. Must be something to be reported to the people who made Twinkle, I guess. SarahStierch (talk) 07:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought there wasn't a module for Twinkle to close AfDs? Ansh666 18:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry it's not twinkle, it's the closing tab that comes down when you're on an AfD page. I have no clue why it's not working with those templates. SarahStierch (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, some sort of script then. Oh well. I'll just keep an eye out and remove any more that I see. Ansh666 20:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/International Society for Small and Medium Enterprises

Hello SarahStierch. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "International Society for Small and Medium Enterprises".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/International Society for Small and Medium Enterprises}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Deleted Article: Kent Evans

Hello Sarah, I writing concerning the [[1]]. I did not notice that this article was up for deletion until too late. As stated in the RfD I have removed superfluous text and cited more sources and additional verifiable sources. Can you undelete so that I can grab the text and add cites and references? Much appreciated!! Thanks

DizaBlah (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry you were unable to help expand your article until it was too late. The proper place to request undeletions of articles is WP:Deletion review. Thanks for editing Wikipedia. SarahStierch (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Rana Muhammad Dilawar

Sarah - At 17,22 today you deleted Rana Muhammad Dilawar ‎(G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) and Talk:Rana Muhammad Dilawar ‎(G8: Talk page of a deleted page)
As you can see from the blue link in the talk page, the talk page has already been recreated.
As the original article was deleted at 07.36 this morning, and recreated shortly after, this editor is very determined to post his autobiography. Could I ask you to redelete the talk page and salt both the article and talk page?
Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it's been done! SarahStierch (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The deletion, yes, but not the salting. Arjayay (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done SarahStierch (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 13:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

greetings and undeletion requests

Hi, before moving on to requesting a deleted article for review the instructions suggest contanting the finally closer admin first. I think that would be you. The Anthony Holland (Composer) page was nominated for deletion hastly and controversally. Despite the influx of editors something terrible happened and a note worthy article was deleted errounously or in error IMHO.

The original article had been made in 07 or prior

16:15, 3 September 2007 Wikihw (talk | contribs) moved page Anthony Holland to Anthony Holland (Composer) (revert)

and much of the controversy stems from Hollands science experiments and his cancer research. These edits would of begun being introduced around 2010 or 2011. ...

And since the skidmore college page has a section for notable acedemics I added anthony holland there too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skidmore_College under the pyschologist Sheldon Solomon.

As a Carnegie hall player http://www.skidmore.edu/music/faculty/holland/  and TED speaker  http://www.skidmore.edu/news/2013/111213-tedxskidmorecollege.php  http://www.ted.com/ I believe that is quite notable. 

And this ted reference is acceptable for the Tumor Treatment Fields article (Wish I had found that sooner) http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_doyle_treating_cancer_with_electric_fields.html

And the john kanzius page seems not so far off from hollands scientific research but faces a resolved understand better than the Holland page.

When you search out Anthony Holland on a search engine his name pops up first and his media mentions and publications.

Can the former anthony holland (composer) article be undeleted for furtehr disscusion and review? 1zeroate (talk) 09:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_December_15

I am tagging you about a deletion review.... I think that is the redress before a request for undelete....

Just trying to do what I can as best i can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 17:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

HI there, for someone to pass notability guidelines they must be discussed extensively (not a mere mention) in multiple reliable secondary sources. The Skidmore and Ted talk websites are primary sources, and I have to admit - Ted Talks aren't that exclusive anymore - speaking at a Ted Talk or Ted X event doesn't establish notability. I'd suggest taking it to deletion review, as the community decided, by consensus, that the article should be deleted (I have no personal investment or care). Sorry that your article wasn't kept, but I suggest having deletion review look at your article. SarahStierch (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Alright I am in the priocess of doing the right things... good to know.. and just to be fair. that wasn't "my" article. It was just another article of wikis. That particular one is of interest to me but so is truth and their are members here that act like a gang regarding certain facets of certain subjects. Nobody had a problem with Mr Holland for years. That includes the gang I meantioned . But once ruby murray tagged Rife too it and called for back up the article was deleted. And if a Ted Refference is good enough for Bill Doyle of novocure and their "tumor treatment fields" then it is good enough for Anthony Holland. At least that is what I think.

The subject material he is assicoated with both musically and scientifficly is of meritable worth. The notablity might be less than chris crocker or tim brady but to academically minded lovers of intellectual pursuits , Anthony Holland is noteable... And it doesn't hurt when their isn't a mob of people deleting refferences. Refferenmcs are needed but who can fight the mop when the mobs on a roll? Tahnks for your assist and words. You have a good one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 17:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Unexplained tag

Hi, you added an OR tag to Feminist_art_movement_in_the_United_States without noting on the talk page which section you were concerned with. We are encouraged to explain our tagging rationale so someone can fix it. I'd suggest it's better to remove the section with a note rather than leaving a tag up unresolved for five years. Either way, please advise. Thanks Span (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Dextra Quotskuyva ready

I've got a replacement stub ready to be published at Talk:Dextra Quotskuyva/Temp. I'll add details as time permits. --Pete Tillman (talk) 06:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Matthew Brzezinski page

Dear SarahStierch:

Thank you for your comments regarding Matthew Brzezinski's page. Actually I am not Matthew although I am related to him. He has had a Wikipedia entry on the Brzezinski page for many years but it was not filled in. I hope that my response to the various corrections and edits over the past year has sufficiently proved his notability, and apologize for my lack of fluency with the Wikipedia language and practices.

Best, Brzezrf (talk) 12:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC) Roberta Brzezinski

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing No Man's Sky, SarahStierch.

Unfortunately Kudpung has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

To avoid possible deleteion, please consider adding reliable sources that demonstrate the importance and significance of this product. I'm sure that if you search the Internet you will find some proof of its release.

To reply, leave a comment on Kudpung's talk page. I just want to ask a question. Take your time answering at your own convenience:rumour has it some people attempt to edit an article and are just truned down;others attempted to edit an article and are denounced as "vandals" while still others have their suggested edits accepted. It seems to that anyone who offered edits,accepted or otherwise is just trying to help.sucessfully or otherwise,and anyone who offers an unacepted edit should at least be turned down politely if their suggestions are not accepted. Don.t be offeneded if for some reawson you find this suggestion unacceptible. You don't have to print this. it's just between you and me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afrasclient (talk • contribs) 19:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

John Travis (physician)

Hi SarahStierch - I wonder if I could ask you a favour, when you have a moment, please? I have been asked to improve an existing Wikipedia page John Travis (physician). The page had a notification dating from April 2009 indicating that the article lacked inline citations. I have sought to address this and also did some additional editing - creating an infobox with an image, dividing the article into sections and adding sections (on the Illness-Wellness Continuum, university posts and NGOs). I haven't changed the actual page as yet (the changes are saved in my sandbox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fbell74/sandbox). I wondered if you would have a look at this to make sure there aren't any issues? I wasn't sure if I should just go ahead and save the changes and then ask for a review but figured I might as well wait to be sure. If you aren't the right person to ask though perhaps you can point me me in the right direction? Thank you in advance Fbell74 (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I gave it a very brief glance. For additional help I would stop by the WP:TEAHOUSE where editors can lend a hand and provide better feedback. Here is all I can suggest right now:

1. If you can't find a reliable secondary source then the content should be removed without questions asked. Even if it makes the article way shorter.
2. You are using external links a little too much in the article body. Links should either be references (if reliable secondary sources), or moved into the external link section. You link to a lot of them, and that is frowned upon in Wikipedia, because it appears promotional. You can learn more about how to use external links properly here: WP:EXTERNAL.

Hope that helps some. I'm fairly busy with some other projects so sorry I can't provide more detailed analysis. Thanks for editing Wikipedia! SarahStierch (talk) 08:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at the draft and for providing initial thoughts. It sounds like you're pretty busy! I thought that the external links might help a reader to find out more information about the respective sub-areas but I see what you mean about them being seen as overly promotional. I've removed these as links in the article and moved them to an External links section. I may have to do some work on the secondary sources. I included these as I thought they would address the original issue of lacking inline citations, but in doing this it has obviously caused problems from a different aspect. Thank you for your help - I'll do as you suggested and go via WP:TEAHOUSE Fbell74 (talk) 07:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Big Chief Mkuja

Dear Sarah, I have just seen that you have deleted the Big Chief Mkuja page. Why have you gone in and deleted this? Ron Jones undeleted it to allow discussion. You have not entered into any discussion or made any comment. I see that you are not from the UK. I doubt you understand the significance of Airplay on BBC radio 6 music. This is by common consent the best music radio station in the UK and Stuart Maconie's freak Zone is the best show on radio 6. His opinion is very influential, and the way that you have dismissed it by your action does not show him or the BBC any respect. You have not given any reasoned argument for your deletion. I would ask you to undelete this and allow proper consideration to take place.Are you a music fan? Jon Allen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kahouna Dreaming (talk • contribs) 00:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, the deletion was based on the consensus for deletion on the deletion page about the article. If you wish to have the article deleted, you can propose it through deletion request. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! SarahStierch (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Could you explain how you see a consensus for deletion please? There are four comments and one delete in the relisted discussion. The original discussion was 2-1 in favour of deletion. How do these contributions equal a consensus for deletion? With thanks. Dalliance (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. It was due to notability. Please see the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Chief Mkuja. The discussion you are referring too had four delete's (nomination counts as one "vote") and "three keep"'s which were posted by what appear to be single purpose accounts. You can read more about that here. I did my own research and the band does not pass our general notability guidelines. I can only find one reliable secondary source (from Pinkushion, which is a blocked source on Wikipedia, so I can't post it) and the BBC link doesn't count, since it's just a mere mention - liner notes, set lists, don't count as major coverage. Again, any major concerns can be taken to deletion review. It appears it's too early for this band to have their own article. Thanks! SarahStierch (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Anthony Moffat

Apologies for the trouting comment. I had you confused with somebody else, I think. Thanks for withdrawing the nom. -- 101.119.14.157 (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate that. :) SarahStierch (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Final comments on Editing Wikipedia brochure?

Thanks for your comments on a previous version of the new draft of the (formerly known as Welcome to Wikipedia, now known as) Editing Wikipedia brochure. We need all final comments on the draft by Monday, 23 December 2013. Add any final comments here! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

.... or as we say Downunder, Yoo Hoo!

I suppose that I ought to join up. However my contribution to the biographies of women artists has been very limited. I wrote the article on Jean Isherwood and have contributed bits and pieces to Florence Broadhurst and others, mainly to people that I have known personally. I was taught by Isherwood and Broadhurst who both had more-than-life-sized personalities.

My usual areas are historic architectural styles- Romanesque architecture etc. Every now and then I come across someone who needs a biography written in order to eliminate a red link. Then I write it. Burcham Clamp, for example. So I will help, every now and then! I need to write a biography of my grandmother, Myra Juliet Taylor, who was an inventor and also a painter, so when I do, she will be part of the project. And then I could write my godmother's biography, as a water-colorist and illustrator. Hoo-Roo! Amandajm (talk) 10:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

WomenArtists

Very kind to have been invited; my main concern is artist's books, conceptual art and modernism. If you need any help with any of those, let me know. I keep meaning to get round to a properly researched article on Chieko Shiomi, but have yet to find much to go on. Perhaps one day.... Franciselliott (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Question? How do I bring a page to discussion that may have been declined but I don't believe should have?

Recently user:Balablitz wiped out the entire page of work for Bardia Rahim in Article for Creation. It was a lot of work that was 100% resourced as reputable with .govs and national newspaper publications such at the San Diego Union Tribune. I have completed numerous excellent Wikipedia's edit many other subject besides people. I feel the notability on the subject meets Wikipedia's golden rule and tone is neutral an unbiased and adheres to polices and guidelines on Wikipedia as the subject plays a key role in particular segments and industries and is a well known notable living person. There was no need for Balablitz to wipe the entire page of work clean? He could have simply listed what may need editing to improve the page. Now I can't even see the work I did previously to edit if I wanted too? No one can? How do I get him to change it back to its original file so it may be edited immediately or how do I take this to discussion where a decision will be made on my article to improve it and or a discussion on why he did that? Osrius (talk) 08:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. It looks like you already reverted his edits. I'd just ask him on his talk page if you have future concerns... SarahStierch (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

my signature

Thanks. Now I think it is ok. By --Giaccai (talk) 17:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Sally Hogshead at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Anthony Carleton

Sarah, please return to this review and give more specificity to which facets of the DYK requirements were checked by you. This will be required if you were intending to use it as a quid pro quo review for a nomination of your own. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Art & Feminism Edit-a-thon

Hi Sarah, just letting you know that the post you put on my talk page lists the event as Saturday, February 1, 2012, whereas I assume it should be 2014. Just letting you know in case it's a template that you have used for several posts. Rob. Robman94 (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

HA HA! DOH! Thanks :) I'll fix it now :) SarahStierch (talk) 05:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Saw your invite. Also got emails. Will seriously try to make it. I want to get back into the flow of helping out with things like this. — iFaqeer (talk to or email me) 04:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Glad Tidings and all that ...

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you help me?

Hello, you helped me previously and I thought you were wonderful and experienced, plus I admire your stellar communication. I have a problem with a user as I feel a little bullied and threatened and I don't like the way he calls my work "a duck" I tried making every effort on his talk page to work with him, I even changed all my work and edited to what he requested only for him to decline it over and over again. I am wasting valuable time and its a lot of work creating a acceptable Wikipedia page. I opened it up in a discussion to be reviewed by a third party and he went and declined it again. I never have had this before and I am a grown man and don't like the way he is treating me. My very important question(s) to you is.

1) Where would I report him and to whom? 2) Where can I find an editor that could review the work and help me make any needed changes to the pages that are being declined by him and (commented on as a duck, basically telling me I suck) so that they are accepted. I believe the company and person meet all criteria to be used in the encyclopedia. Not to mention there are way more companies and people and not so well written bios that have been accepted so I am over here scratching my head in disbelief?

Please Help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osrius (talk • contribs) 23:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:American women textile artists

Category:American women textile artists, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Sionk (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Women textile artists by nationality

Category:Women textile artists by nationality, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Women textile artists

Category:Women textile artists, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Women artists/Notability concerns

Hi, I am so thankful that you've started the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women artists project! I have really loved the articles that I've been able to clean-up, source, etc. Now that I've got a couple under my belt, I thought I would check in to ensure I'm keeping pace with the objectives and check in about whether I'm too lenient or strict when applying notabilty and WP:ARTIST.

It's amazing how one starts getting attached to some of the articles after working on their articles.

I'm going to take a short break to work on Alice Neel, but if you don't mind sharing your thoughts that would be helpful. I'll "watch" this page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Carole! You've been doing great work, and you're pace is great - I know there are more articles out there with questionable notability but I got burnt out with categorizing and stopped building the list for the time being, but feel free to add anything you come across. When I find time after I wrap a few other wiki activities I'm doing I'll be working right back there with you. I'm so glad you are involved in this project! Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 22:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, great! Thanks, Sarah, I'm very glad, too!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

100,000 edits

Seems that you should post this userbox:

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

With all the authority conferred upon me as a registered editor, I hereby bestow it upon you! Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

That is quite an accomplishment for an actual human being as opposed to a bot. You are human, Sarah, aren't you? If so, congratulations! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow, Sarah, way to go! And Merry Christmas, too. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Disputed AfD close

Hello there.

I feel rather strongly that your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beethoven's liver was incorrect. "Delete" has far more support than "Merge", and the article creator all but admitted he created it as a WP:POINT violation. Looking at the article on Ludwig van Beethoven, I see no section where it fits, and more importantly, no section where it would be considered a meaningful addition rather than trivia. I would like for you to reconsider your decision.

Sincerely,
Sven Manguard Wha? 17:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sven! I think it's best that people discuss their desire (since it appears some people had interest in discussing that further) for merges/redirects on the talk page before filling up deletion discussions with it. Then, people can nominate it for deletion again if they desire - hell, you're welcome to do the same if you wish :) I read a book about the mystery of what happened to Napoleon's penis after his death. I have a feeling an article could probably be written about that. So, I suggest perhaps if anything pans out of value and if not, feel free to renominate, or if you can't sleep at night (and sometimes Wikipedia does that to me :) ) deletion request is fine by me. I have no personal investment in the AfD's I close. Thanks for stopping by, and sorry I'm not being more helpful. I would totally love to see an article about the mysteries about notable peoples body parts, but I have lots of strange books about that (as I mentioned), and I have to admit..I do use Wikipedia for some form of trivia ;) So it's not all bad :) SarahStierch (talk) 17:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I have opened up a deletion review. It is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 December 25. Hope this causes no hard feelings. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

So cute kitten as alone. Be friendly can do firm as in life... Be happy for Kitten grew up..

Millie Vadgama (talk) 01:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SarahStierch. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Azmyth (2nd nomination).
Message added 01:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cheers! —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Sandy Fields - editor is at it again

You were the closing admin at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandy Fields (2nd nomination), which resulted in speedy delete per G4. The original creator was User:Theo Jeffries who was warned extensively about recreating a deleted article. Today, User:William Jeffries created an account and then re-created Sandy Fields. This person is sockpuppeting, disruptively editing, recreating previously deleted articles and clearly disrespecting the entire Wikipedia process.

Can you: (a) permanently block both users, (b) delete Sandy Fields (again), and (c) is there any way to prevent the re-creation of an article?

Thanks, Jrcla2 (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jrcla2! Thanks for monitoring the situation. I blocked both accounts (and didn't formally confirm, but it's fairly obvious re: socking, so I blocked for suspected socking), looks like Sandy has been deleted. I did a WP:SALT to the article so it can only be created by Sysop's now. Thanks again for being on the lookout! SarahStierch (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of article The Yellow Wallpaper (film)

Dear Sarah:

Rquirements per WP:NF satisfied.

Evidences of Notability per above article:

1. "The film is widely distributed": 4 major studios have (or are) distributing this title: Netflix (2012-2013), Amazon Studios, ITunes Studios, Inception Studios, Government

backed institutions (Baker and Taylor) Libraries across U.S.

2. "The film is historically notable": a. "Publication of 2 non trivial articles within 5 years": There are too many articles on Google, search engines, magazines to note here, plus the referenced 125,000 print run

of discussion and referencing the film in Harbrace Guides for colleges and universities across America.

3. "Some films do not pass the above tests....and should be evaluated on their own merits".

a. "the film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema".... this is the only period film shot on the 950 camera (same as Avatar). this needs a reference and the article

needs to be expanded regarding this. This film is the only feature film made from the historical story. the film in 1989 was a TV movie. for more here, article needs to be

re-posted and expanded.

4. "the article has significant involvement of notable persons":

Notable people: 5 time emmy award winner, golden globe winner, 2 time tony winner: Michael Moriarty Notable person: 3 time emmy award winner Veronica cartwright Notable person: Independent spirit award winner Dale dickey Notable person: emmy award winner Raymond j. barry Notable person: Juliet landau, daughter of Martin landau, star of buffy the vampire slayer Notable person: writer Charlotte Perkins Gilman, social revolutionary, writer, feminist

5. This article was approved for 6 years by previous editors at wikipedia and expanded.

There is a lot more, but the article needs to be expanded.

Where has the original article gone with the references? etc?

Thank you for your help.

Max V.Atafirst (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I userfied your article here. If you would it to be considered for undeletion, please propose that at deletion review. Thanks for editing Wikipedia, and Happy New Years. SarahStierch (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year SarahStierch!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello SarahStierch: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 15:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Delete merge several articles about towns in Shangzhi county, Hunan

I'm trying to clean up a little after a series of deleting discussions about towns in Shanzhi county, Hunan which were done in a batch because of their similarity. They were closed as "merge "X" into "X, Sangzhi", but I believe this is a mistake. The nom suggests this but the editors agreement is per their rationale stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhuyeping. There it is pretty clear that the concensus supports merging "X, Sangzhi" into "X". I started performing the merges in-line with that assumption, but I stopped because I worried that going against the stated result of the discussion was likely to lead to confusion for anyone paying attention (probably no one). So, can I be bold and continue making these merges as I have with Zhuyeping, Liaojiacun and Lifuta. I have been making this kind of merge because of my understanding of the place article titles guidelines, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Disambiguation and WP:PRECISE. It is my understanding that the shorter less specific name is prefered where no disambiguation is needed. Is this a correct understanding of the guidelines, that names like Lifuta, Shanzhi should be Lifuta if no other topic has that name?

Should I continue moving and merging, should I stop and wait for some thing else to happen first, should I reverse the merges that I have made? - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 11:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. I suggest keep being bold, and frankly, if you haven't been pinged on your talk page about it keep going ;) I also agree that following the naming convention link you shared is best - I do the same when editing cities and places for the layout, and never had a problem when someone has challenged my changes. Thanks for being bold, and editing. Happy New Year! SarahStierch (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt guidance. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 18:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Miku Matsumoto article deletion

Hello Sarah,

Recently, you were the closing admin for the former page dedicated to retired mixed martial artist Miku Matsumoto. The article was removed due to what was cited as a lack of "top-tier fights." I believe that the page was removed in error and I would like to explain why before making use of the deletion review process.

The current "top-tier" criteria for fighter pages lists Jewels (mixed martial arts) as one of the promotions deemed eligible for consideration for female fighters. Below it, Deep (mixed martial arts) is listed as a "second-tier" promotion and is only deemed eligible for consideration for male fighters.

The main issues with this are that: 1) Deep was the "big brother/sister" promotion to Jewels and the companies are now merged under one banner, so Deep should surely be given equal or greater weight in comparison to Jewels, which was a much smaller promotion, 2) At the time that Miku Matsumoto was competing, Deep was the second-largest MMA promotion in Japan and its female champions typically received greater recognition than most of its male champions, and 3) As the final Deep women's lightweight champion, Matsumoto was the holder of what is generally thought to have been the most prestigious women's title in Japanese MMA history so far.

In addition to the points above, Matsumoto also defeated the following fighters who all have Wikipedia pages that remain intact: Rena Kubota, Seo Hee Ham, Hisae Watanabe (whom she defeated for the Deep title) and Lisa Ellis. Also, Deep's other women's champion, Satoko Shinashi, still has an active page. I have never before questioned an article's deletion and probably won't again, but I do feel strongly that the page for Miku Matsumoto is worthy of restoration. If I can be of assistance by adding new references and/or bio information to the page should it be restored, I will gladly do so. Thank you for your time. FemaleMMAFan (talk) 07:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I'm sorry that the article for deletion process didn't lean the way you prefer. Since I don't handle undeletion discussions on my talk page, I ask that everyone take them to WP:Deletion review, because I could not undelete the article without the community coming to consensus for that. All heck would break lose if I undeleted something even given your earnest effort to express why the subject may pass the general notability guidelines and those guidelines for athletes. I suggest that you post it on deletion review, and perhaps solicit the participation of people from the MMA community here on Wikipedia, and also the women's sports Wikiproject. I'm sorry I can't be more help. I do appreciate your contributions. SarahStierch (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Ressence

Dear Sarah,

Happy New Year! Could you please review the many warnings at the top of the Ressence page, and my comments in regards to this on the page's "talk" page. I have tried to ensure it now meets all the standards, and it would be great if the many warnings could be reviewed and deleted...

With many thanks,

Roald

Maliangkay (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear User:Maliangkay. I regret to say that I'm pretty busy with some offline projects and some other things right now, and I would like to ask that you request review and assistance for that article at the Teahouse, a space I co-created to help editors find friendly and fast assistance. They will be able to provide more feedback faster about your article than I can at this time. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! SarahStierch (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Purple Barnstar
		for sustained effort, under pressure, now taken off wiki - "you don't have to say anything, and you don't have to do anything"; you'll always be aces with me, and i'll always owe you a beer. Duckduckstop (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Dear Sarah, re the Big Chief Mkuja debate. You stated that www.pinkushion.com was a blocked site. Can you tell me why? They are a respectable on line music review site. Why have they done to incur the wrath of Wikapedia?Kahouna Dreaming (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Kahuna Dreaming

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec13}} to your friends' talk pages.

Wikilinking

Hi, and thanks for your work on the English Wikipedia. Just a short note to point out that we don’t normally link:

• dates
• years
• commonly known geographical terms (including well-known country-names), and
• common terms you’d look up in a dictionary (unless significantly technical).

This is true also for infoboxes.

Thanks and my best wishes.

Tony (talk) 09:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

[Sarah, hi, I don't normally boilerplate regulars, but perhaps you weren't aware of the modern practice on en.WP. All the best!] Tony (talk) 09:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Editing mentioned

Hi. Just in case you're unaware, your editing was mentioned here and here. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

And on User talk:Jimbo Wales. I'll suggest one short denial or explanation (maybe here?), but it might be proper just to ignore it (as in "don't feed the trolls"). It's of course your call, and I extend my sympathy for anybody in the situation where they are attacked by people like this. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Specifically User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Paid_editing_by_WMF_employee_on_oDesk NE Ent 03:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Sarah, regardless of whether or not you are employed by the Foundation, you are an administrator of this project, and really need to respond to this issue promptly. I see you have edited since these notices but are yet to confirm whether or not, as suggested here you have engaged in paid editing. Please could you confirm the position asap. WJBscribe (talk) 12:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

WJBscribe, even if Sarah has accepted paid editing work she will have violated neither the site terms of use or policy of the English Wikipedia. That means that as an administrator or an editor, she is not obligated to respond to rumor, accusations of misconduct or any other attempt to smear her. Nathan ^T 15:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

elaborating on my barnstar comment, i don't think she needs to do anything: let the off wiki smear campaign stay off. if you have some real evidence, take it to ANI. of course, now that arbcom has opened the door to sanctions for off wiki conduct, it's all fair game, right? i, for one, am sick and tired of the star chamber and innuendo that passes for inquiry. better to make this a better place for people like her to edit, while we still can. she has plenty of career options in the open knowledge community, which is more than can be said for most of the admins around here. Duckduckstop (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Please Help

Hi Sarah, you left me a message on my talk page and offered to help me get an article approved by Wikipedia. Thank you! Yes, I work for Onehub and that might be the reason that my article keeps getting rejected. If you can, would you be willing to help me get this approved?

The article, that I have been trying to get approved, can be found at - [2].

Thank you so much!

LizOnehub (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I answered at your talk page. I am afraid Sarah is currently in a difficult position to offer you quick help.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

OTRS status

Hi. Could you tell me what the status is for the OTRS for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Saeed Khoze, which you said had OTRS pending on November 24? Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 19:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Ramaksoud2000: Hmmm, I was unable to find the ticket number at OTRS, which means that, as of now, that page can be deleted as a copyvio. If the ticket number appears, then it can be checked and restored. — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 19:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 02:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

User page update and non-responsiveness above

Hi.

When you have a minute, you'll need to update your user page disclaimer and the associated categorization as they're no longer accurate. I tried to do so myself, but the page is fully protected (by you) from editing by non-admins. :-(

Regarding the issues raised above, I would strongly advise you to respond as soon as possible. If you continue to ignore requests for clarification regarding your past editing here, it should come as no surprise if your local adminship here is forcibly removed. A lack of response will be taken as an abdication of administrative responsibilities and there will very likely be an ArbCom motion or full case. To be clear, this is in no way a threat, however prior precedent is pretty clear that users, particularly administrators, must be responsive to concerns raised about their editing. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Did she misuse the tools as well? I was under the impression that the current kerfuffle was regarding paid edits and COI and whatnot, not misuse of her admin status. This is a long-term, highly productive editor and admin who is getting it from all sides, and now just very publicly lost her job. It is also possible that she was asked to defer her on-wiki response as part of her separation from the WMF, in order to let the situation cool down (which always works, of course). I would ask that we give her some time before stampeding off to Arbcom. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

She's had plenty of time already. Eric Corbett 20:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe. But look at it this way - if I lost my job in such a public fashion, and then found out that I had to rehash incident on my talk page, to satisfy the community... well, I'd probably lose my tools for violating CIVIL instead of whatever had the community mad at me. Whatever concerns exist about her edits to articles, she is not currently editing articles - so the problem, if indeed it is a problem, is not continuing. I agree that she should respond in some fashion, or indicate that she has e-mailed arbcom explaining the situation, or whatever, but I do not think the community or the project would be harmed by giving her another day to do it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

And what will you say tomorrow User:Ultraexactzz, when she still hasn't responded? Eric Corbett 21:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, Sarah is perfectly entitled to take a wikibreak with a length of her own choosing. In my opinion, it is unseemly to insist on an immediate response. Hammering on her right now reflects poorly on those wielding blunt instruments, not on her. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hardly "immediate". How long has this been going on? Running away when you get caught out isn't really such a great idea. Eric Corbett 21:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It has been about five days, Eric, and there are no deadlines here. Taking a wikibreak is not running away, and sometimes a period of silence allows "OMG!" emotions to subside. As well as this situation, she has something very time consuming going on in her off-Wikipedia life. Patience, please. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

So not "immediate" then. The general pattern I've observed on WP is to ask for time in the hope that the storm will blow over and the fundamental reasons for it can then safely be ignored. Until the next time. I don't consider that to be very honest. Eric Corbett 00:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Eric Corbett—please assume good faith. Bus stop (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm simply saying what I've observed, no faith involved whatsoever. Eric Corbett 00:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought you were casting aspersions about honesty. I'm glad to stand corrected. Bus stop (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with you. She's already fixed up her user page (thank you, Sarah!). I think it's perfectly healthy to occasionally take wikibreaks, particularly when editing becomes stressful or unenjoyable. In this situation, I'd likely be considering a short wikibreak to cool off and there's no deadline around here. However, if/when she returns, in a day or in a week or in a month, the issues raised above must be addressed before she can continue editing here. Collaboration and discussion are fundamental. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• The Foundation announcement concerning Sarah's employment is a double-edged sword: while it will come as a disappointment to the volunteer community that such a high profile editor/admin has been revealed as conducting practices which are incompatible with their employment, it may be seen by some of the volunteer community that the Foundation is able to act rapidly and reasonably. Sarah's work on Wikipedia as an editor and admin is a separate issue and one that if necessary, will need to be resolved by the community. The community's processes are however long, very public, and are not always devoid of unpleasantly expressed opinions (at least whatever discussions were involved within the Foundation were not available for public scrutiny). If Sarah were to be forthcoming with a statement, what she might have have to say may save her and the community from the indignity of forced arbitration concerning her adminship status and editing of certain articles. Let's not forget however, that the act of imposing humility upon another person is called "humiliation". Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Kudpung, if a large majority of our most active and experienced editors were to abandon enthusiasm for rushed humiliation, and instead conduct our examinations of "misconduct" in a more reserved way, without demanding "justice" in 48 hours, then Wikipedia and the whole world would be a better place. If Sarah chooses to try to return to normal editing and use of the administrative toolkit, then clearly she will need to make a statement and answer questions. But what difference does it make if that discussion takes place tomorrow, or next week, or next month? Her edit history is public, as is her use of the mop. If the articles she has created have problems, then improve them through normal editing, or suggest their deletion through normal processes. She isn't damaging the encyclopedia now, and my hunch is that she hasn't ever. So give her time and space. She can respond some day, or disappear if she chooses. Personally, I hope she returns but in the end, the choice is hers. Let her be. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you, Cullen, for a voice of reason and objectivity. Binksternet (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you, Cullen for fairly accurately paraphrasing what I said above in my old-fashioned British English. My comment was as neutral as I could make it, and correctly interpreted, it is clear that I neither support her making a rushed statement, nor that the community should be impatient to begin any of our 'processes'. FWIW, I share your opinions entirely. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks to you you as well, Kudpung (and also Binksternet). Nothing I said was intended as a criticism of your remarks, Kudpung, but more as an elaboration. So my friendly remarks are tempered by deep sadness for what has befallen Sarah. I am tempted to try to defend her here, but I think I show greatest respect for her by allowing her to actively defend herself if she so chooses, or to send an advocate to speak on her behalf if she so chooses. So my remarks are from the sidelines. I am only an advocate for fairness and restraint in this sad matter, and an advocate for kindness toward Sarah. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Your meta-edit of Maria Dumlao

What's the basis of your saying that Maria Dumlao is un-notable? Do you even follow contemporary art? She showed at Momenta Art, was part of Brainstormers, which I'll further document to show importance, finally she is part of the Vox Populi collective in Philadelphia, which I'll reference.--38.105.132.130 (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Dumlao. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Minimum standard for inline citations

This comment shows a complete lack of understanding of what the minimum standard actually is. Have you actually read them? SpinningSpark 00:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Since you seem to have no intention of justifying your decline of this article, let's post it to mainspace and see if you can get it through an RFD. I am now going to unwatch your page (I have no interest in having the drama developing below pop up in my watchlist every few minutes) so if you now wish to reply to me you will have to message my talkpage. SpinningSpark 18:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The Purple Barnstar

		The Purple Barnstar
		The Purple Barnstar is awarded to those who have endured undue hardship (e.g., incessant harassment) on Wikipedia but still remain resolute in their commitment to the project and its ideals. I think it fits the current situation well - through I hope that, as the award implies, you'll stay active here despite the current difficult time. Keep up the good job, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Hi mohit singh 20:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Sarah Strong

	Guinness for Strength
	I hope you are doing ok. Rosiestep (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG

Here's hoping that boomerangs exist in the real world too. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

An article that was deleted...It says there is a response on your page but now it is gone..

I think I wasn't able to view it fast enough. Can you post your response again? Thanks so much.

Dear Sarah:

Re: The Yellow Wallpaper (film)

Rquirements per WP:NF

Evidences of Notability per above article:

1. "The film is widely distributed": 4 major studios have (or are) distributing this title: Netflix (2012-2013), Amazon Studios, ITunes Studios, Inception Studios, Government backed institutions (Baker and Taylor) Libraries across U.S.

2. "The film is historically notable": a. "Publication of 2 non trivial articles within 5 years": There are too many articles on Google, search engines, magazines to note here, plus the referenced 125,000 print run of discussion and referencing the film in Harbrace Guides for colleges and universities across America.

3. "Some films do not pass the above tests....and should be evaluated on their own merits".

a. "the film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema".... this is the only period film shot on the 950 camera (same as Avatar). this needs a reference and the article needs to be expanded regarding this. This film is the only feature film made from the historical story. the film in 1989 was a TV movie. for more here, article needs to be re-posted and expanded.

4. "the article has significant involvement of notable persons":

Notable people: 5 time emmy award winner, golden globe winner, 2 time tony winner: Michael Moriarty Notable person: 3 time emmy award winner Veronica cartwright Notable person: Independent spirit award winner Dale dickey Notable person: emmy award winner Raymond j. barry Notable person: Juliet landau, daughter of Martin landau, star of buffy the vampire slayer Notable person: writer Charlotte Perkins Gilman, social revolutionary, writer, feminist

5. This article was approved for 6 years by previous editors at wikipedia and expanded.

There is a lot more, but the article needs to be expanded.

Where has the original article gone with the references? etc?

Thank you for your help.

Max V.

I would bring your case here, as it would get more attention than asking the administrator who deleted the page for help. Also, three of those "studios" are not studios, and one of them isn't notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

DEAR KEVIN: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atafirst (talk • contribs) 02:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi there Kevin. One of the studios is not notable, that is correct. But Amazon and Netflix (in fact) are studios. So there are only 2 studios at this time. But the other "distribution" companies are notable in the fact that they have distributed a massive amount of content for many years. But per your suggestion, I will take up the discussion on the page that you have referred.