Jump to content

User talk:Seraphimblade/archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Deletion of page Zebronics

Hi @Seraphimblade I came across that you have deleted the page zebronics under the reason G 11. However I would like to know the real reason for it. The content is not promotional it had good sources too. Zebronics is an company like Samsung, lg, intex etc. If the page is really deleted as a reason for g11 then you got to tell the reason on why Samsung Intex Technologies Sony are not deleted. Zebronics is the consumer products that we Indians used to buy at easy price I think you have some partiality over Indian articles. If you think the company is not notable then check its references such as thehindu, economic times, financial express, bloomberg. I am not on the company side but I really feel we Indians are rejected often. If you think Indians and Indian products are good then you undelete the page and respect people of India. If you disrespect then all I can say is god Jesus will see you in the way you see others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyson345 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tyson345: The reason stated is the real reason. The article is essentially a "profile", with a product catalog and a laundry list of relatively non-notable awards. That's characteristic of advertising articles. I do see several sources cited, so the company may be notable, but articles must be encyclopedia articles, not just a "profile", as Wikipedia is not a business directory. If you'd like to have another try, I did protect the mainspace page since it had been inappropriately created many times, but you can create a draft at Draft:Zebronics. If articles for creation approves the article there, I would be happy to unprotect it to allow them to move it to mainspace. I generally recommend doing the draft process for new editors anyway; creating an appropriate new article is always a challenge and a little help with it never is a bad thing. And by the way, religious threats to an atheist generally don't have much effect beyond getting a laugh, but it would really offend some people. I'd advise you avoid that in the future. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@seraphimblade I am not a great writer and I have not created it. All I want to know is why you have not deleted pages Sony Samsung Intex Technologies. You asked for good sources I think the article had a lot of good sources from tines of India, bloomberg,economic times, the Hindu. For your info the company is a good and it has even mentioned as a largest electronics goods manufacters in the article chennai you can take a look also I want to clear you one thing I am not giving you threat I have huge respect towards since iam a Indian I am fighting for my country based company. Don't take me wrong if you undelete the page may be I can help the article, also those awards are based in India and plz give it some respect. All people from India ate behind zebronics the article was already requested to the admin to create you can see it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Business_and_economics/Companies/T-Z#Z!-- Template:Unsigned -->— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyson345 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Good Lord, you were right about Intex Technologies, that was almost pure puffery. In that case, though, there was a non-spam version to revert to, so it wasn't speedy eligible. The other ones aren't advertisements or "profiles". I've already advised you how you can proceed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of page accountingWEB

Hey! I'm not affiliated with accountingWEB in any way. G11 wouldn't apply. Accounting Today and accountingWEB are both well-known in CPA news circles. Let me know what you want to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhanks (talk • contribs) 20:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bhanks: G11 applies to any promotional material. It doesn't matter why you wrote it. Sometimes it's clear promotional material is a fan page or school boosterism; G11 applies to those just the same. As far as here, "...leading online community for CPAs..." (we don't use "leading", and certainly not without a reference), "...providing news, software tools and guidance from top industry voices." (marketese waffle), " We aim to inspire the modern accountant to embrace new ideas, develop, grow, and make changes that matter." (Who is "we", if you're not affiliated with them? We'd never use that in any case, articles are always written in the third person, and that's highly promotional language.) Articles must be neutral in both content and tone, and must not promote or "talk up" anyone or anything. I'm not sure what you mean by "what I want to do". If you mean will I undelete advertisements, the answer is no. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade Ok good point. Honestly I copied and pasted the page from Accounting Today hoping not to have to do all the formatting and writing from scratch, but two wrongs don't make a right. ;) Bhanks (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade Scratch that. I pulled that right from their website. Should've definitely tone it down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhanks (talk • contribs) 22:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bhanks: Okay, that's a second problem then, as that is also a copyright violation. You can't copy and paste text from other websites to Wikipedia; articles must be written in your own words. If you've done the same thing elsewhere, let me know and I can clean up or revision delete the affected text, but we can't keep around copyright violations. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: If I start out with copy and paste and then rewrite from there, is that a violation? What timeline are you thinking I need to go through my own article and make changes? Do I need to do this all today? Bhanks (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@Bhanks: (You don't need to ping me on my talk page, I automatically get a notice when an edit is made here.) It is, but you're not in trouble for it or anything; it's a common mistake made by new editors. If at any time the text is a direct copy of nonfree material from another source, it's a violation of copyright. (We do make an exception for short direct quotes that are marked clearly as quotations and properly attributed, but even those should be used sparingly.) If you copied in text before and then later edited it so it's no longer a direct copy or close paraphrase, let me know and I can revision delete the revisions that contain the copied text. The revision history is why we can't allow that—the copyright violation would remain in the page history even if it's later edited or even removed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade Ok I'll take a look and see where I have wholesale copy and paste issues going on. Bhanks (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Anthony J. Coffey nomination for deletion - April 12

Hi @Seraphimblade: a page Anthony Coffey I monitor and participated in creation (in 2010) was nominated for deletion. The article was at first stub, then someone upgarded it to a wikipedia article. It has around 20 references from various sources - NYC newspaper Village Voice and small town newspapers Watauga Democrat and Mountain Times. Please advise. I appreciate your help. Tanton2008 (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tanton2008: My apologies, I seem to have missed your message. That being said, the AfD reached a consensus to delete the article, and to be quite honest, I think that was the correct result. For something to be an appropriate subject for an article, the subject in itself, not something affiliated with it, must be extensively covered in reliable sources. It appears that is not the case with this individual, they were at best mentioned in passing. If that changes in the future and they are extensively covered, not just mentioned, an article about them might be appropriate at that time. But it doesn't matter who bought their work, or where they exhibited it, or anything else. The only consideration is how extensively they, themselves, have been written about by good third-party references. That's the only thing that matters. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Impulse (Hopkins novel)

You deleted this article 10 minutes after it was tagged. I was writing a notice on the talk page when you deleted it. You didn't allow enough time for an opinion other than your own. Please undelete so the article can be fixed rather than scrapped. Senator2029 “Talk” 20:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Senator2029: The article was a promotional piece for the book, right down to a "teaser" rather than a full plot summary. When I checked back to the earliest history of the article, it had never been anything but that. Speedy deletion is, well, by definition, speedy. If you have good out of universe references for the book, you are welcome to write a new article for it using those. I do not undelete advertisements. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I've helped its english a bit, but it should either be removed until there is an editor willing to put some effort into it, or have the copy-pastes thrown out and/or rewritten. Creeper Ninja (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

Administrator changes

added Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim
removed Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Just had a look at your user page and liked you on the spot. Please accept my best wishes.

Alireza1357 (talk) 06:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Well thank you! And no worries about the rest, we all started out as newbies after all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Several Pages

Dear Seraphimblade,

Thanks for your work on Wikipedia. I’ve noticed that you’ve tagged a number of my articles for “speedy deletion” because of a lack of references and lack of notability. I was wondering if you could give me an estimate of how many references you would consider appropriate. I’m adding these chefs to Wikipedia, because I’m trying to give visibility to these chefs who are often overlooked by other platforms in media due to their identity and positionality in society. I believe these chefs are notable people because of their success in the culinary industry (impressive accomplishments and clientele) despite the obstacles they have faced. Thanks for your help. Any input would be appreciated.

Averma95 (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Averma95: I left quite a lot of advice on your talk page. I hope you've had a chance to review it. For the two articles that were speedily deleted, they were promotional. We do not allow promotion of anyone or anything, including an article that "talks up" the subject. Articles are required to be strictly neutral in tone and content. Some examples: "health-conscious cooking, cooking cleanly..." (meaningless, feel-good phrasing typical of marketese), "This type of free advertising is priceless for a young chef like Chef Dee, and Snapchat has been instrumental in her success. Social media is a very effective tool to gain exposure since it gives people that do not have access to conventional means of success, especially historically marginalized groups like women of color, to have a platform to demonstrate their talent." (no reference backing that assertion, and yet more "talking up", as well as looking to be an editorial). So, it might even be possible that there would be enough reference material to have an article about these individuals, but it must remain strictly neutral, contain no editorializing, and present only facts verified by reliable sources. We let the reader do the interpreting, we do not do it for them.
So far as the two articles up for proposed deletion, they're pretty thin too. Catrisa "Cat" Turner (which would need to be moved if kept, we'll note the nickname/full name in the article, but not the title; we'll rather use that as their name if they commonly go by it), is awfully thin. One is an interview (not independent), one is from "Off the Chain Management" (not reliable), and one is the subject's own site (not independent). In the other, Alisa Reynolds, one is to Vogue, which is reliable enough, but the piece is a blurb and in any case is primarily about her restaurant, not her. The Vice piece, similarly, is just a short human interest blurb with no real biographical coverage. I did look back before I removed the BLP and NPOV violations from the article, but the rest aren't much better. There's a blog (not reliable), and a New York Daily News piece that is about Beyonce, only mentioning the restaurant in passing as where she ate (and not mentioning Reynolds at all). No number of sources like that make an article appropriate, even if there are hundreds. We're looking for sources that are reliable, independent, and in-depth cover her. Not her restaurant while mentioning her in passing. Her.
It's not about a "magic number" of sources. Rather, as I explained on your talk page, the references must be reliable (see the reliable source guidelines I linked earlier for details, but generally the source must have a sound reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and editorial control), independent (not published by the article subject or someone affiliated with them, not a reprinted press release or interview, etc.), and must cover the subject in substantial depth (not a blurb or brief mention). If enough of that type of reference material exists to write a complete article on someone, they are an appropriate subject for an article. If not, they're not. If those are the best references that exist on these two individuals, they are not appropriate article subjects at all.
We are not here to "give visibility" or right any wrongs. We're here to write neutral encyclopedia articles when, and only when, we have enough high-quality reference material about a subject to do that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC closure

Hi. I would just like to thank you for your excellent closure of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RfC to adopt a default gender neutral style for policy, guidelines and help pages. The result was not what I had voiced my support for, but your assessment of the discussion was perfect. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Seconded. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I see you've closed the rfc, and I must say you've eloquently done justice to both sides in your choice of words. For that, I congratulate you. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Great job on the closure!  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  15:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Thirded. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC).

Recent deletions of my page dalekay and band page Inquisitor Betrayer

Swift you are on the band page. My page was up for years. I noted your reasons and I disagree. Could you give me some advice on how to post the band page, maybe an example and personal page. I wish not to get the swift blade of delete again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalekay (talk • contribs) 10:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Dalekay: My advice to new editors, especially those with a conflict of interest like writing about something they have an interest in promoting, is to use the draft process. Once you think the draft is ready for the encyclopedia, an experienced editor can review it and either move it in if so, or call attention to any issues if not.

That aside, I'd advise you to first check if an article is possible, so that you won't be wasting your time if not. To be an appropriate subject for an article, we must have suitable reference material to write about that subject. The sources must be reliable (fully explained at that link, but as a brief overview, it must generally be a source with a strong reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and editorial control, so generally not blogs, fansites, or the like), independent (not written by the subject or anyone with an interest in promoting them, no interviews, reprinted press releases, etc.), and must substantially cover the subject in detail (not just a brief mention, name drop, or blurb). My initial search for sources of this nature about the band weren't promising, but it's possible you know of some I didn't see. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Regardless, articles must not be promotional. The "article" was really just two links to social media sites and a "Find our music here!" piece. We generally permit one external link at the very bottom of the article, in an "External links" section, to either an official website or primary official social media profile. We don't need or want a whole bunch of them, nor any "Find us on..." type material. Even if there is appropriate reference material to write about the band, that article must be strictly neutral in tone and content, never "talking up" the band or deviating from the facts verified by the sources. That can be really hard to do when you're writing about a subject you're very close to, hence my recommendation you go through a process that will be reviewed by others. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

All good info. Thanks. I should have left in draft as Band Page was outline being made. My personal page now, I think I had that under a different impression but see your point. Again thanks for taking the time to steer me in a more correct direction. Dale (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Old articles and news rules

Dear Seraphimblade,

I have questions that I have been unable to find official Wikipedia guidance/policies for. I wonder if you might know where to find rules about it, or how I could inquire further.

Let's image that a goodwill and capable editor creates a wikipedia article on a book. To prove notability the editor shows the book fulfills notability criteria #1 per WP:NBOOK (The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself), by showing that there have been two reviews of the book. Let's imagine the article is well-written and structured and after it is published and reviewed by other editors and it is deemed to be of high quality and fully compliant will other Wikipedia policies at the time. Now let's imagine that 10 year later editors reconsider the notability policies for books, and raise the minimum threshold to 4 works talking about a book. According to the new rules that book article that was created 10 year prior, no longer meets the new notability rules, even though it was fully compliant when it was created. My first question is: Is there some Wikipedia policy that protects old articles from deletion when they were created when the rules at the time were scrupulously followed?

If it only has been 10 years since its creation, there is a good chance that the editor who created the article (or someone else familiar with the topic) is still following it, and if someone else tags it, the editors may be able to "fix" it and provide additional proof of notability.

However, imagine that the change in policy occurs 50 years after the article was created (yes, I know that this is looking way ahead but I think that some wikipedians may consider the long view reasonable and actually sensible to ponder on). Nobody familiar with the topic of that one book may be readily available to improve it when the notability policies change. Would then the article be unceremoniously deleted?

Further, I would posit that as an article ages, it may acquire historical value in itself; There are many books that were notable to the society of a 100 years ago that are not known at all today (with just a handful of literary works continuing to be popular today), but discovering information about all those other books nowadays is illuminating to understanding the thought and culture of those times and those societies. So my second main question is: Has the wikipedia community considered the long-term preservation of articles (by only deleting them if they were not compliant to the rules when the articles were created and developed in their early years of existence), based on the fact that the more an article ages, the more insight it can provide into a topic of interest in past times?

Two clarifying points: First, Right now and in the past I have not had a disputes with any other editor concerning this matter. I am not an "affected party"; I am simply looking for the long-term preservation of knowledge in Wikipedia, and to see what has the community thought of and determined so far. Second, there are some articles that are subject to continuous improvement and expansion, for example the article on cancer will be continuously updated to reflect the latest developments. Other articles are more self-contained: the biography of a person, an article on a book... those are articles that at some point become mature and may not need much further editing after a certain point. My questions above are focussed on the latter, and not the former. Thank you. (talk) user:Al83tito 16:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@Al83tito: Keep in mind, the sub-notability guidelines are, essentially, suggestions. Meeting them does not mean something is definitely notable, nor does failing to meet them mean it is definitely not. It just means there's a decent chance of it. Ultimately, the question is "Is there enough reliable and independent source material about this subject to write a full article on it?" If someone nominated it for deletion, the consensus of the discussion would hinge on that point. It is the consensus of the discussion that would determine if the article should be kept or deleted. However, deletion is not a permanent bar to an article ever existing on the subject. If new source material is written, or you can find some that no one knew about at the time, it's entirely possible you could write a new article using that. We don't really do too many hard rules. Personally, I think those subguidelines do more harm than good, since some people get the idea they are hard and fast rules, not just guidance. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for kindly responding, I will ponder on that.(talk) user:Al83tito 06:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Skaz One Article

Hello Seraphimblade, I've been trying to clean up the Skaz One official wikipedia page and read your comment about no reliable sources. During my own research I have came across some better independent sites that I plan on replacing some of the old ones with. Did you have any other critique? I am fairly new to contributing. Thanks! Ashleyh551 (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ashleyh551: There is no such thing as an "official Wikipedia page". Every article on Wikipedia is edited and maintained by the editing community here. That being said, if you've got better reference material, I'd like to see it. But if "independent sites" means sites with no reputation for fact-checking or editorial control, those won't do. References for an article must meet the criteria for reliability, without exception. If reliable sources haven't reported on this subject, it's not an appropriate subject for an article and may not have one, period. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

e @Seraphimblade I have found more articles as previously mentioned that are solely written about Skaz that I am getting together. As for the one's posted, I am absolute positive at least The Source Magazine, which has been around for years with publications in the written form and online , has each article fact checked and ran by an editor as any other national magazine would be. I have read over the reliability link you included and believe when I do my completed edit all bases will be covered. Another User was kind enough to let me know where I need to post evidence of reliability as well as include the new citations, as this is open for discussion due to the possibility of deletion. Thanks of your insight and responding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleyh551 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ashleyh551: You have not shown me any of these articles. I'd be happy to take a look and evaluate them, but I need to actually see them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I will, however, add that the new "references" added to the article don't work. Some are Youtube videos, which are essentially never reliable, and one is to "Ballerstatus" and written by an anonymous author. We need reliable sources, written by a real named author, not "Staff", and published in a source having a good reputation for reliability. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

added Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn
removed ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 June 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 22

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 22, April-May 2017

  • New and expanded research accounts
  • Global branches update
  • Spotlight: OCLC Partnership
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Carbon Tracker Initiative

I would like to accept Draft:Carbon Tracker Initiative but creation is protected so I need an administrator's help and it looks like you were the last to deal with this. There does not appear to be consensus among AfC reviewers that the topic is notable. There are NPOV concerns that I don't share but I beleive this can be worked out through normal editing once the draft is moved to mainspace and is unlikely to result in another wholesale deletion. Thanks for your consideration. ~Kvng (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't do the salting, but it looks like it's already taken care of in any case. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 June 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

G3

I am worried the page Abdulla Issa may be a hoax. I nominated it for AfD instead of G3, but can you take a look and see if it would be suitable for G3? I haven't been able to verify that there is a Palestinian poet Abdullah Issa. The page was created December 25, 2016 accroding to DYKCheck - Abdullah Issa was, of course, the name of a 12 year old Palestinian boy who was beheaded in Syria in July 2016. There was other suspicious content in the bio, like the poet moved to the Soviet Union and learned Russian and made a documentary film called "Muslims proud of Russia" about how one can be both a Muslim and a Russian Patriot. I nominated it for AfD instead of speedy deletion because I could not be sure that there were no foreign language WP:RS that could confirm the existence of a Palestinian poet named Abdulla Issa—but I would feel better about it if an experienced admin could looked it over—if it is a hoax, it's a sick one and it shouldn't stay up because of no consensus at AfD. Seraphim System (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: Someone at AfD has already objected to deletion. Given that, it's not a candidate for a speedy. Let the AfD process run its course. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, someone was able to verify that he exists with an Arabic newspaper WP:RS, I am leaving the AfD open so other editors with Arabic/Russian language skills can comment on WP:GNG. Seraphim System (talk) 12:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The Forest Trust (TFT) deleted page

Hi Seraphimblade We've found our page has been deleted because you consider it to be an advert. We didn't mean to, and we would appreciate if we could access the content again so we can draft another article for approval. People are searching for us and need to know what we do. Please can I request userfication of the deleted article so we can get our content back? Then we can work on it to make it in line with your standards. Thanks in advance for your help. Rosie Pearce Comms Assistant TFT (The Forest Trust) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.21.226.226 (talk) 10:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

First off, I want to make it very clear that it's not "your" page, nor your organization's. Wikipedia is for encyclopedia articles, not "profiles", and it's not here so people will "know what you do". That's what your organization's own website is for, which I presume you have. If not, there are many free and low-cost hosting options that serve nonprofits, but Wikipedia is not one of them. Second, no one from your organization has complied with our requirements from paid editors, which includes anyone who creates or edits any material as part of a duty of employment. Before we can discuss any further, you'd need to undertake to fully comply with that policy, and also indicate that you understand the issues and pitfalls of editing with a conflict of interest. Once that's been done, we can go from there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hiya, thanks for fast reply! Yes, we meant 'the' page, not 'ours', sorry for that. On the page - how can we find out which paragraph was affected (perceived to be biased)? I'm no wiki-whizz so it's a bit of a struggle to be honest! I mean - how do we find what these requirements from the paid editors are? Happy to comply. Thanks!

I linked right to them. You'd just need to follow the link. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Seraphimblade. Thanks for your reply. I've read through the guidelines. We are happy to comply. I am the Comms Assistant at TFT, I understand this creates a potential conflict of interest and the steps we will need to take to prevent this. Next time we will write the page using the peer review process. We will ensure to disclose that we are, in effect, paid editors, working for Comms at TFT, on the WikiPage. Please can we see the content which was deleted? Many thanks for your ongoing help and advice, Rosie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.21.226.226 (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I see you're requesting userfication, but you've talked to me here under an IP. To userfy it, it would be best if you registered an account; it's hard to keep track of something userfied to an IP. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Here it is - apologies, should have logged in before! - username: Zippicool. Thanks! Hi Seraphimblade - using our username now - sorry about that before! Are you able to enable us to edit the page? We know now how to follow Wiki guidelines. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zippicool (talk • contribs) 15:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I have not yet had time to look the deleted material over for problems. I will get to it when I have time. There is no deadline. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Brilliant - many thanks. Look forward to hearing from you soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zippicool (talk • contribs) 15:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Zippicool: I didn't find any copyright issues or the like, so I userfied it at User:Zippicool/The Forest Trust. I stubbed it to remove the advertising (we don't allow ads anywhere, including in userspace), but you can still review the previous versions and their references by using the article history. Once you think you've written an appropriate, neutral article, use the button at the template on the top to put it in for review. If you change your mind and no longer want to work on the page, you can tag it with {{db-u1}} to have it deleted from your userspace. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help and advice, Seraphimblade! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zippicool (talk • contribs) 14:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

added Happyme22 • Dragons flight
removed Zad68

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
  • A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
  • Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Kanvic _ Deleted Page

Hey. I just found out that the page I created has been deleted. I would like to let you know that Kanvic is one of the fasted growing Management Consulting firms in Gurgaon, and being a researcher in this industry, I feel it is crucial for people to have knowledge about the upcoming firms in this country. I can assure you that this page was not created for advertising or promotional purposes and just for the sake of knowledge. I would request you to give me access to the article again so that I can make the necessary changes to make it seem more neutral. Looking forward to your response. Nilasis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B.nilasis (talk • contribs)

@B.nilasis: Before proceeding farther, I ask those who had any article deleted under G11 if they are being paid or compensated to edit about the organization, including being asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment. If that's the case for you, you will need to make the mandatory disclosures required of paid editors before we can proceed any further. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

1902 Software Development deleted page

Hi @Seraphimblade, I found that you've deleted the page I made for 1902 Software Development. I would like to gently ask for your consideration. I've been continually adding citations there that attest to 1902 Software's credibility, and IT accomplishments that were recognized by people in Denmark. I also made it very brief and neutral to show that it only aims to present facts that are supported with citations―usually from IT websites, blogs, and forums in Denmark and the Philippines. But if you are still unsatisfied, which is why you deleted it, can I request that you return it in atleast its Draft mode, so that I can improve the page in line with your suggestions. I'm hoping to hear from you soon.Pam wiki2017 (talk) 06:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC) Pam wiki2017 (talk) 06:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC) Pam_wiki2017 —Preceding undated comment added 06:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Pure curiosity

On Sept 26 2016 you deleted Philippe Hoerle-Guggenheim about 20 hours after another admin had deleted it. It was recently recreated and deleted again. I guess my question is whether the article was recreated in those 20 hours, or was there a technical reason for it being deleted the second time? I'm not here to contest the deletion. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Yes, it was recreated after the first deletion. And after mine too, which is why Doc James had to delete it again (he also salted it, so hopefully that's the end of it there). Looks like there was a sock farm going on there too, but that's already being taken care of. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, that's all I wanted to know. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Gamil Design

I appreciate what you did. I don't know how anyone after eight years could say G11. If I can find more general information when I get time, I will, but it was all I could do to find that much. I realize the company has been borderline notable all this time, but I thought it deserved to at least have an article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I guess all you accomplished was to delay the inevitable. I can't find anything with a quick search and it looks like others have tried to rescue it. There's no point in my trying to make a case. How this happened after eight years I don't understand. Thanks anyway.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Southern KitchenProtection

Noticed that you speedy deleted Southern Kitchen and protected it from being recreated. From my watch list it looks like you protected the talk page of the article from recreation, not the article itself. Not sure if this was your intent. Cheers.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: Nope, just a good old fat finger. Thanks for catching it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Re: User talk page

Sorry about the mistake. I've undeleted it myself, removed the CSD tag and left a "please blank instead" edit summary. Thanks and cheers, Alex ShihTalk 20:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! No troubles, we've all been there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome
Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Well thank you! That sure was a while ago, wasn't it? Amazing how fast that seems to go. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
And what a poem! - I wasn't here then, but the archives are well-kept, and inspirational! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I loved the poem, and the photo was absolutely perfect for my username. I've actually had it on my talk page ever since. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

David-waterways articles deleted

Greetings, my articles about hotel barges are not publicity, but descriptions of heritage vessels that represent an important contemporary activity on the European waterways, and especially on the smaller French canals. There are at least a dozen hotel barges described and referenced, and a general page {{Hotel barge}}s offers links to them. I've made edits on that general page. I have joined the WikiShips group to maybe play a role in disambiguating between seagoing ships and inland vessels. I am president of Inland Waterways International, a not-for-profit association. I have a lot to work on, many things to clear up, errors to correct. I look forward to coming to an understanding so that these two articles, Johanna (barge) and Finesse (barge) can be reinstated. At your disposal here to discuss. Thanks David-waterways (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@David-waterways: You will need to find reliable sources that cover the ships in reasonable depth, both to ensure factual accuracy and verify the article information, and to demonstrate notability. If such reference material cannot be found, the barges are not appropriate subjects for articles. If it does, write the article and cite the references, taking care to stick only to facts the references verify. I also always recommend that newer editors use the draft process rather than trying to create articles directly in mainspace; that gives you a lot more breathing room as it's expected drafts won't be ready from the start. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: Thank you, but could I ask you possibly to transfer the deleted articles to drafts? Because if I try to start drafts on those subjects, that is likely to be impossible or to cause problems. Just checking. Thanks. David-waterways (talk) 07:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, do you have interest in doing drafts on them or not? I'm not clear what your last meant. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).

Administrator changes

added Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 (first RfA to reach WP:300)
removed Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 August 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Seraphimblade. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Be Good. Think Positive. Be Generous and Just Frigging Smile Always (talk) 09:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


Page Deletion: Emmanuel Kwamena Bartels

Hi Seraphimblade, you deleted a page about a Ghanaian celeb I created on wiki. So I did read the deletion to be promotion and unexisting stuff. There's supposed to be nothing in there promoting him as it was written from a neutral point of view. And if any material was missing or broken link was found, please let me know. If possible, can we please discuss the reason, and the fixes if there were problems with the page? There are everything posted up there with links. Page name was Emmanuel_Kwabena_Bartels. Kindly Reply.

Thanks Pupinsre! Be Good. Think Positive. Be Generous and Just Frigging Smile Always —Preceding undated comment added 09:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Pupinsre: As normal for anyone who had an article deleted as promotional, I'll first need to ask whether you're being paid or otherwise compensated to do this work. If you are, you'll need to make the required disclosures before we can proceed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: No.. I'm not being paid. I found out he's one of the numerous talents in Ghana who's not on Wiki. I figured it'd help and it helps somehow, knowing wiki.

Kindly Reply.

Thanks Pupinsre!

Thanks for the clarification. I don't undelete advertisements, and this page was absolutely full of promotion and "talking up". Some examples: "...would make beats with almost any object he laid hands on..." (we don't use colloquial expressions like "make beats"), "With much dedication and interest...", "...he excelled in it...", "...made his way to the top of the list...", "...with much ease and class...", (all marketese "talking up", we don't do that), "Known to many as the king of beats..." (we don't use weasel words like "many", who specifically said that?). Also, I'd like an explanation of how you just happened along to an article that a spammer and confirmed sockpuppeteer edited one day prior. That being a coincidence stretches credulity, so I'd sure like an explanation of that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Page Deletion: Fabric Genomics

Hi Seraphimblade, I'd like to follow up with you on a page you deleted earlier today. Full disclosure: I work for the company that is Fabric Genomics, although I am not paid to write about the company on Wikipedia or elsewhere. Nor am I the person who created the company's page earlier today-- that was our head of marketing/social media, and I'm sure the page content read as such. I've read the G11 (db-spam) section of the deletion FAQ page, and I recognize the conflict of interest between working for a company and striking a neutral tone when describing that company; but, I am well acquainted with Wikipedia's philosophy of neutrality and have a modest history as a reliable editor. I think I can be fair in this. To that effect, I'd like to present to you a revised introduction to the Fabric Genomics page:

Fabric Genomics is a computational genomics company specializing in clinical data analysis. The company was founded with a focus on hereditary disease, and has more recently expanded into the field of oncology. Fabric Genomics is headquartered in Oakland, California, with offices in Seattle, Washington, and Boston, Massachusetts.

This is a very simple introduction to the company. It could certainly use more content to help explicate the significance of the company, but I think it is a fair and objective introduction nevertheless. Do you have any objections to me remaking the Fabric Genomics page using this content? If so, could you please provide me with some guidance on how I can make the introduction comply with Wikipedia's standards? Thanks! Milo Toor (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Milotoor: Well, you did a decent bit better than the version I deleted. That being said, the most crucial thing would be to ensure you find reliable and independent sources that cover the company in reasonable depth (so not name drops in articles about something else, press releases, interviews, etc.). If reference material like that exists, since you do have a conflict of interest, you should start the article as a draft so that other editors can review it, using only facts supported by those references. If references like that can't be found, the company isn't a suitable subject for an article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: Thanks for the response! I'll work on collecting some references to support the article's creation.

Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

help

i dont get what you told me please explain for me i need help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Placide bobo (talk • contribs) 14:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@Placide bobo: I believe the warning I gave you is very clear. Wikipedia does not permit promotional material, including sales brochure like company "profiles" like you did at Blu Flamingo or glowing "talking up" as you did at Nancy Kacungira. Once I removed your advertisements, you put them back. If you put them back once again, or put promotional material anywhere else, you will be blocked from editing altogether. I trust that is sufficiently clear to you. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade:im sorry but for nancy kacungira i didn't put any advertizing or promotional material you can review it and check help i dont have any profit im just trying to improve wikipedia by adding some articlePlacide bobo
As a sample of things you put in that article: "... her intelligence, knowledge and experience could not be matched.", "...has now grown to service an impressive roster...", "...equipping them with skills to do freelance work that can earn them a living", "...most authoritative news channel...", and much more like it. We don't do that kind of glowing "talking up", that is promotional language and is not acceptable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Network Time Foundation

Hello! I'm at Wikimania and one participant was talking about creating an article on this subject. We saw there was a previous version that was deleted, which I took a peek at. While it has its issues and some promotional wording, I found it to otherwise be a well-sourced article on an apparently notable subject. As the deleting admin, I was hoping you could give it a look and see if it's worth reviving? We could move it to the draftspace and go from there. OK by you? — MusikAnimal talk 02:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: If you think it's salvageable, by all means. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! — MusikAnimal talk 02:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

deletion of article "Suneet Singh Tuli"

This article should not have been deleted in my opinion, rather I request it be restored and marked for further expanding for following reason: 1. Article about company DataWind , which is famous worldwide for producing cheapest tablets like Aakash for which promotion charge is there in deletion request , is already there on enwiki . 2. Person Suneet Singh Tuli , is already a prominent person whose name as is there in Forbes Imapt 15 list of magazine [1]; Person has been awarded at global platforms including launch of his innovative and most affordable product by poor Aakash Tablet ;by Ban ki moon , Secretary General of United Nations [2]. [3]I request for review of deletion and request for restoration of article in his name.Guglani (talk) 06:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC) Guglani (talk) 06:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

For more references about awards and honours to the person please refer article in Punjabi wiki Suneet Singh Tuli in Punjabi

Suneet Singh Tuli was nominated for deletion by me. Seraphimblade deleted it, and you will need to liaise with them about perhaps resurrecting it as a draft. Edwardx (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I have reproduced discussion on talk page of user:Edwardex , as he asked to liaise with you about this.If not possible to restore, please provide me draft of this article.Guglani (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Guglani: As I ask anyone who's had a G11 deletion, please clarify whether you are being paid or compensated to write this article, or have been asked to do so as a duty of employment. If so, there are some disclosures you will need to make before we proceed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
At wiki I do not work for any paid articles. you can see my contributions . IF you ignore independent sources for prominence of subject then I have no more requests to you to restore. your question has hurt me because of doubt on my integrity.There is no evidence for such doubt , If you genuinely feel you should restore you may do it.You are welcome for any questions about prominence of subject, I shall be happy to discuss it.Guglani (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
@Guglani: Nothing against you. It's something I ask everyone who comes to discuss a G11 deletion. In many cases, the person is being paid, and was simply unaware of the disclosure requirement. If you say you're not, I'll take you at your word. That being said, there's nothing really salvageable in that article. It's full of fluff like "Despite the problem, he competed against the difficulties" (talking up, informal tone), "Tuli showed his accumen with his idea to get this large size fax machine to be taken into Guinnes Book of World Records" (promotional language), "(suggestion Suneet Singh's natural business brain gave the student Suneet to his brother Raja Tuli at the time)" (we don't do parenthetical editorials), and "His brain was concentrating to make the hand very powerful in using the Internet." So, I'm not going to undelete it, because it's better to start over. You can do so, but I strongly suggest you do it as a draft rather than in mainspace, and stay away from any overly positive language that is not neutral. Stick to a presentation of only facts that are supported by your references. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestions , I will incorporate in this and future articles.Guglani (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
But is there a way that text of article can be made available to me in sone form so that I need not struggle to gather facts and references search again ?if it is there please make the text available to me.Guglani (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
@Guglani: If you have email enabled I can send it to you that way. Let me know if you'd like it and if so if you would prefer a plain text or wikimarkup version. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
you may send mail in wikimarkup version .My user I'd Guglani is email enabled.--Guglani (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I've emailed it to you. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again--Guglani (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.tribuneindia.com/article/news_print.aspx?story_id=319818&catid=20&mid=53
  2. ^ http://www.stockhouse.com/news/press-releases/2014/11/21/datawind-ceo-suneet-singh-tuli-receives-award-of-honor-at-65th-world-sikh
  3. ^ http://www.tribuneindia.com/article/news_print.aspx?story_id=319818&catid=20&mid=53

Books and Bytes - Issue 23

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 23, June-July 2017

  • Library card
  • User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Spotlight: Combating misinformation, fake news, and censorship
  • Bytes in brief

Chinese, Arabic and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

TBST

Hey, regarding the non-AE portion of TBST's troubles:

  1. Me being less harsh than others is rare, I know. But not unheard of. I don't know, it sounds kind of stupid when I say it out loud, but he's so much less disruptive now than he used to be, it seems a shame to indef now when we didn't do it then. I think a short wake-up call is in order, though, since Ponyo already specifically mentioned the sanctions in February. An indef could be held in reserve if things don't get better quickly.
  2. I'm not going to be doing the blocking/reinstating the other topic bans, because I can't count on being around much in the next few days, in case they're appealed. So if you or User:Black Kite want something further done, don't wait around thinking I'm about to.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Well, that's why it rather got my attention. I'll take more of a look at it later, but so far as the 1RR goes, there's a lot of history of edit warring but the blocks are some years ago. So, probably 72 hours or thereabouts. Thanks for letting me know though, I'll take a look at it later if Black Kite doesn't get to it first. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam: Yep, and then indeffed anyway. I rather suspected things were heading in that direction. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Society for Academic Continuing Medical Education

Seraphimblade -- The author published one copy called SACME this morning, then anotherSociety for Academic Continuing Medical Education you blew away, then another I PRODed, to which the editor scrambled my tag. I'm not expert or confident enough to tackle this one. Good luck and thank you. Rhadow (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Rhadow: Promotional articles can be tagged with {{db-g11}}. I've deleted the articles with a dose of salt this time, thanks for letting me know about it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Closing

Hi, Seraphimblade. Regarding this and this, do you mind closing the rest of the thread as well? I'm not sure if any further comments will be made to the thread, but, given the nature of the thread, I think it's best that the entire thread go ahead and be closed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Yes, I do mind. It looks like people are still discussing some of the surrounding issues, and I see no reason to stop them from that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't see the discussion going any further (except in circles), and anyone clicking on the top of the thread will not see that the issue has been resolved, but okay. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

added Nakon • Scott
removed Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
  • Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
  • In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

  • Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of my article

Hello sir, I created a page "Here One" and you deleted it. I really worked hard and kept it to standards. I want to edit that as I have prepared a better version. Please guide where to add or I should publish a new version Thanks JamesInside (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@JamesInside: As I'll ask anyone who had an article deleted as promotional, first please clarify whether you are being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia, or being asked to do so as a duty of employment. If the answer to any of those is yes, you'll need to make the required disclosures. Once that's done we can proceed from there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thank you, I am not involved in any of the activity that you mentioned above and I carefully read the terms. I am a user of the product and a tech student. I work on similar projects and during vacations I spent time and dragged towards this. I am really amazed how wikipedia works and enjoying it. I attended some conferences related to the product and their achievements, therefore, I thought it should be here if it is a well known product. Anyway, do let me know if I am in the right direction. I thought the problem is with the text, so I prepared another version. But do let me know if I am eligible to publish or not. Thank you dear JamesInside (talk) 11:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@JamesInside: I'm not sure what you think you're going to get by calling me "dear", but I'd knock that off. Being a smartass isn't going to incline anyone to help you. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Juliantaf03/sandbox

Is back, SB. Many thanks-take care. — fortunavelut luna 16:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. — fortunavelut luna 17:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of our company information page

Hello - we trying to setup our Wikipedia page - Cetera Financial Group, INC. [[1]] - this is not a promotional or advertising page, our peers LPL_Financial [[2]] and Raymond James Financial[[3]] have similar pages, we are a $1,6 billion company with 1,300 employees, we are involved in a series of acquisitions and mergers and would like to use Wikipedia as our source of educating the public of the structure of our company - please let us know exactly which part offended you and we gladly rewrite it and make all necessary changes in order to be compliant with Wikipedia guidelines— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterbrooke581 (talk • contribs)

@Peterbrooke581: Well, there's a lot of issues here. The first is that we don't permit use of trademark symbols in articles, and the article was full of them. They're one of the surest indicators I've found that I'm about to read a promotional piece. But they go a long way past that. "...is a leading provider of..." (don't use "leading" or other fluff adjectives), every instance of the name is bolded (only the first should be, and overuse like that is typical of marketese), and overall, the whole thing read like a PR brochure. Wikipedia isn't for "profiles" and isn't the place for you to talk to or "educate" your customers on the information your company wants to put out about itself; that would be the role of your organization's website. The purpose of Wikipedia is rather as an encyclopedia. If an article is possible, it would not be "your" or your company's article, and you would not be entitled to any special control over it.

As far as whether an article is appropriate at all, that I don't know (the fact that similar other organizations do have them has no bearing on it; it's not uncommon for one to be suitable for an article and another not). I checked the references in the article. Many are from PRNewswire, which is not an independent source and so doesn't establish any notability, and others are from the company itself (also not independent), but there did seem to be at least some material that might qualify as reliable and independent. But an article should be based primarily on such independent references, and material that's self-published like the organization's own material or its press releases should be used very sparingly and only for uncontroversial matters of pure fact. Generally speaking, if it wasn't important enough for an independent source to mention, it's not important enough for the Wikipedia article to mention either.

It's really hard to maintain neutrality about something you're close to and have an interest in. We cover that to some degree in our advice for those with such a conflict of interest. It's very hard to create an appropriate new article anyway, and that situation makes it even tougher. If you would like to give it a go, you could try creating the article as a draft. Just prepend "Draft:" to the article title, in this case Draft:Cetera Financial Group. ("Inc.", "LLC", etc., should not be used in page titles.) Once you think you've created a neutral article with good independent and reliable references, you can ask articles for creation for a review. An editor from there with no conflict of interest will then review it and either move it into the encyclopedia if it's in a state for it, or call attention to any issues if not. I'd generally recommend new editors start that way anyway, but especially so with a COI.

Finally, if you've been paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia, or asked to do so as a duty of employment, there are some mandatory disclosures you'd need to make before making any further edits on the subject. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: Great advice - will follow your instructions and we resubmit

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterbrooke581 (talk • contribs)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Why the page has been deleted?

I have been trying to understand why the page article i am creating keeps on being deleted. Someone has to explain so we know what is being considered wrong. I did follow exactly what other Wikipedia pages did, and yet it was still deleted. All i used are facts and events. no promotion no advertising.

Can you please help?

Thank You markadams — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markadams1 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It looks like you've already received the answer on your talk page. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

International Institute of Green Finance

Hello, just dropped by to clear a confusion. I nominated this article on 13th September and you deleted it after few minutes. I checked the logs of this article and I noticed that you protected it from creation and restricted the recreation only for accounts with admin privileges. Now, this article is recreated by somebody, within 24 hours, on their first valid edit. How can this possibly happen? Hitro talk 20:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@HitroMilanese: SoWhy, an administrator, moved the page there from another title (the previous edits from the new editor were done at the unprotected old title). Administrators can override protection, including moving a page to a create protected title. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Ohh, I understand now. Thank you for the clarification. Hitro talk 20:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

ECampusOntario

Hi I saw you recently deleted the above page. I had left a message on the talk page and a template saying that I was dealing with the promotional tone of the article. I wonder if it would not have been better to contact me before deleting the page...I don't think that on the whole it was totally promotional but did need some rewriting. Domdeparis (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Domdeparis: I see that all the time when reviewing the G11 queue. I'm afraid it tends not to happen, so after seeing some instances of that, I look at instances as they are, since an article is expected to be non-promotional at any time it's in mainspace from the first edit onward. That article shouldn't have been moved there with language like "...currently works to enhance access to online and technology-enabled learning...", a verbatim quote of the "mission statement" (which is essentially promotional anywhere), "...offered by reputable postsecondary institutions", "...in an effort to raise awareness about online learning and its potential to positively impact education." That's just the first couple sections, the whole thing goes on and on like that. The fact that something is a government entity or not for profit doesn't preclude G11, promotional "talking up" like that isn't acceptable for any article about anything. Those issues should have been resolved prior to the draft going to mainspace. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
OK point taken, thanks for the reply I suppose I was just happy for once to see an article that was correctly sourced and about a subject that is evidently notable that I moved it too quickly to the main space. Would it be possible to reinstate it to draft space and I'll advise the creator about cleaning it up? Domdeparis (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Sure, I've returned it to Draft:ECampusOntario. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that but I wasn't quick enough it got deleted and salted immediately after. Cheers Domdeparis (talk) 11:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
@Domdeparis: Sorry to hear that. Unfortunately, promotional material is subject to deletion anywhere, and while it sometimes gets a little more leeway in draft space, that's not required. If you're still interested in writing the article, I'd be happy to email you the list of references that was used in it. Let me know if you'd like me to. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that but I'll leave it to the person who wrote the article to do that. I was just a reviewer for AFC who moved it into the main space too soon! A good lesson for me and to be honest I would have probably tagged it for deletion of I'd been wearing my new pages reviewer hat. I really think the article has its place on WP so I feel a bit guilty that because of me it got salted. Anyhoo I'll contact the article creator and give them some advice. Do you have their username handy? Now it's been deleted I'm not sure I'll be able to find it easily. Thanks for your help. Domdeparis (talk) 06:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Seraphimblade this is Julia. I am responsible for submitting the piece on eCampusOntario. Could you clarify the reasons for which it was deleted? I would like to resubmit it and avoid this happening again. Thanks Juliamartineau (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Juliamartineau: The article was deleted because it was promotional, and we do not allow promotional material on Wikipedia. If you'd like more detail on how, I gave some examples of promotional language in the discussion above. Those were not by any means the only examples of it in the article. Also, please note that if you are being paid or compensated to edit, including being asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment, you must make the required disclosures before editing about that subject again. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

UTRS appeal

Regarding UTRS appeal #19264, note that the IP address in question belongs to ZScaler and so, practically, functions as an open proxy. I'd have left a comment on the UTRS ticket itself, only I'm unsure if by doing so, it would just be visible to reviewers or also to the user. --Yamla (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

It's only visible to UTRS unless you explicitly send it to the user as a response. But thanks for the information nonetheless. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Sudha Ragunathan

Hi,

I have to contest the removal of the article Sudha Ragunathan. Can you please provide me the full history of the article?

Mrs. Sudha Ragunathan is an eminent Carnatic musician and has been awarded the Sangeetha Kalanidhi title, which is considered the highest in this field. She is also a well known playback singer.

In my opinion, even if there has been peacock terms and other such advert-type verbiage, the page should not be deleted - it should only be edited / trimmed to ensure an encyclopedic content. The page belongs on Wikipedia.

Kindly assist in getting this resolved as soon as possible. Thanks. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 11:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Kindly refer to so many articles that also refer to this page. Sudha, List of Carnatic singers, List of Carnatic artists, M. L. Vasanthakumari, Sangeetha Choodamani.
The Government of India has conferred the title Padma Bhushan in 2015 and can be seen in template Template:PadmaBhushanAwardRecipients_2010–19
VasuVR (talk, contribs) 11:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@VasuVR: Other articles linking to it has no bearing. And no, advertisements are not edited, they are deleted. That's the precise reason for the existence of G11. The latest version is full of stuff like "...is a disciple of the legendary...", (no, "studied under" will suffice), "Sudha also has the unique honor of rendering...", (Raganathan, not "Sudha", and the "unique honor" verbiage is unneeded fluff), "Her music echoed in the hall of United Nations..." ("she played at the United Nations" will do fine), "Having sung some very popular numbers..." (popular according to whom?). And that's just the first paragraph. Previous versions really aren't any better, they read like a fan page. If you can find good reference material about her, you're certainly welcome to give it another try, but the article needs to be neutral, avoid puff adjectives, and stick to simply stating facts supported by reliable references in a neutral tone. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: - I beg to differ - hence I need the full article restored into a sub-page of mine. Please do it as soon as possible. She is definitely a very notable and accomplished singer. It is not "linking" of pages, but the highest achievements! I think you have misunderstood the specific pages that I have pointed out, because of the order of presentation in my statements. Please go through both Padma Bhushan and other awards and you will understand the import.
It can be made neutral, but deleting is not the right move. If we together look at the full history of edits, we can know both the import of the page as well as when / why something was taken forward in a wrong direction of using peacock terms, etc.
Thanking you in advance for restoring the page to my User-subpage - say User:VasuVR/Sudha_Raghunathan - so that I will work on it and get it into appropriate shape after filtering out fluff and puff.
VasuVR (talk, contribs) 15:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Afraid not. G11 is a global deletion rationale, so even if I restored the promotional article, it would just be eligible to be immediately deleted again. If you'd like to reuse some references, I'd be happy to email you a copy, but the article itself will need to be started over. There's not really much in there that would be salvageable anyway, it's currently extremely promotional. And, again, promotional articles are deleted, have been for a long time, and will continue to be. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade:I would definitely like to get a copy. Kindly email me at vidyavrv at gmail dot com. Thank you.
I am surprised at the rationale you have applied. However I am not able to state my case at all, as you are refusing me information on history of changes, whether it was fan update which has caused this problem, or any one else with mal-intent. I think this article has been there for a long time and it was in decent shape in some time in the past.
I have been involved in this genre of articles and hence in my watch list for a very long time. Hence the surprise that a long standing article has suddenly gone into a G11 rationale.
VasuVR (talk, contribs) 05:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

PopWrapped

@Seraphimblade: Hello. This article was flagged for speedy deletion based upon the assumption of being promotional, even though there was no POV, nor was there any leaning toward the company either way. Anything that could have been misconstrued was changed and the facts were stated in a neutral way, backed by reliable sources. I’m not sure why this has happened. There were edits made after the article was flagged. Were these taken into consideration, or was this article just assumed to be correct and not checked before deletion? THBAO (talk) 06:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@THBAO: Well, I could hardly determine if the article needed to be deleted if I hadn't looked at it first. I'm not sure how you think that would even work. Insofar as this particular one, there are quite a few issues. "...a Glee-centric brand..." (it's not a "brand", it's a product, company, or website, "brand" is marketese), "...Jaydon partnered with Harry Potter superfan...", (we generally wouldn't use stuff like "superfan", certainly not without strong referencing stating that), "...appearing under the new marquee..." ("on the new site" would do fine). A bit below that, it goes into a massive explanation of the company logo. The gallery of images violates our policy on nonfree content (one logo, the current one, is permitted in articles about companies for identification), but also there is absolutely no third-party coverage of the logo or its history. If it wasn't important enough for reliable and independent sources to mention, it's not important enough for Wikipedia to mention either. The article then goes on to a massive violation of our biographies of living persons policy by making a huge deal over a lawsuit with, again, no independent coverage whatsoever, and claiming a living person was found to have committed "crimes" when they were in fact only found to have committed a civil tort. Those aren't crimes. But, regardless, same again. If it wasn't important enough for reliable and independent third parties to cover in that kind of detail, it's not important enough to be in the article either. The final section is essentially a product catalog. The whole article is characteristic of an attempt to get "copy" up, and looks like a "profile" or the site's own web page rather than an encyclopedia article. That's promotion. The "references" are blogs, Youtube, business directories, or the site itself. That won't do it. You would need multiple references that cover the site substantially and in depth, and meet the above criteria for being reliable and independent. If such reference material does not exist, the site is not an appropriate subject for an article at all. If they do, any article would need to stick to only facts verified by such references. Also please note that if you are being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia in regards to this subject, including if you were asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment, there are some mandatory disclosures you should have made at first, but regardless must make before editing further in regards to the subject, including further discussing it. Regardless, starting an appropriate new article is a very difficult task, and often new editors get it wrong. If the above is true about you being paid, you must submit the article via articles for creation, but even if not I'd strongly suggest that. New editors are not often able to create an appropriate article that will not be deleted in mainspace, and that will let you get it reviewed by experienced editors who will call attention to any issues. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: Thank you for your reply and insight. Throughout this whole process, I had reached out to other editors for advice and nothing was returned. I wish I would have known that you existed prior to this because I’m sure you could have steered me in the right direction before reaching this juncture. As far as payment for writing in Wikipedia, I thought this was a voluntary group of people. I wouldn’t know how anyone would even go about having circumstances like that be initiated. I’m a reader, of this publication and of others for a long time and thought that it should be here, as I’ve noticed other, smaller publications on Wikipedia. I changed some of the wording after it was placed into the queue for deletion, but you actually listing the phrases that needed to be changed helped a great deal, and that is exactly the help I was seeking before from other people. I will dive deeper into obtaining more sources and rewriting with a more straightforward approach. Would this be permissible? This is really all just a simple misunderstanding and I really have no malice nor have I knowingly violated policies. I suppose I don’t learn anything if I don’t fail a few times, right? I am striving to be more than just a casual editor and reader and I do appreciate your help. Thank you. THBAO (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@THBAO: (Just for reference, you don't need to leave me a ping when you're writing on my talk page, I automatically get notified when it gets edited anyway). So, a couple of things. First, yes, paid editing certainly does happen, and I run across it a lot dealing with the G11 queue. Thanks for clarifying on it. Though even though that would indicate you're not required to go through AfC, I'd still definitely recommend it. If there are problems in the draft article, the reviewer will tell you what they are, and you can continue editing the draft to correct them. Also, you might consider editing and improving some existing articles before you jump into creating new ones. Selecting an appropriate article subject, and then getting an article written on it well, is one of the more difficult things we do. If you do some work on existing ones first, you might develop a bit more of a feel for what we're looking for in neutrality, sourcing, etc., in articles. A speedy deletion doesn't preclude the article ever being written, so if the subject is indeed notable and enough solid reference material could be found, that does remain possible going forward. But please do be especially careful of BLP. I linked to it above. Since Wikipedia is highly visible, we're very sensitive to making private or even semi-private information widely available to the public, especially when it hasn't previously been widely published. Going through court records, interpreting them, and putting a great deal of detail about them in the article, when no one else saw fit to publish about and analyze the case, will pretty much always be a no go. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and detailed explanation. That is certainly what I was seeking this whole time and I will definitely heed your advice and do better next time. I get it now, thanks to you. I am confident that I can create an article that in a neutral voice and I will not add extra elements that can be misinterpreted as promotion. I will continue to read policies and learn more about the editing process, and how to find articles that need to be fixed and/or edited to sharpen my skills. You taking the time to explain things to me has helped a great deal and I hope that I can contact you in the future if I need guidance or if I have any questions about anything. Enjoy the rest of your day. THBAO (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy delete:reason:?

Hi,

On 14th September you have deleted a page (Zemana).

You mentioned that it was deleted due to multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria G5, G11. User: Jeremy112233

I have checked criteria G5 and it says that this applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others. G5 should not be applied to transcluded templates or to categories that may be useful or suitable for merging. I was editing this page since last year and I am not a blocked user however you have named here a User: Jeremy112233. Since this user has made some small changes to the Zemana page and taking the fact that he is now a banned user - did this case the page to be deleted?

Another criteria is G11 and its related to promotional character of the page. We have taken many steps in consideration- putting references on every statement and following the steps of other approved articles. Can you give us real examples in the text where the promotional character appears because it would really help us in the future.

Thanks!

Argerra — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argerra (talk • contribs)

@Argerra: Who is "we" and "us"? If you are employed by the organization and are editing Wikipedia as part of your duties of employment, you must make the required disclosures prior to editing further on the subject, including discussing it. The same is true if you work for any other organization being paid or compensated in any way to edit the article, or are a freelancer for whom that is true. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: Thanks for this helpful notice. Was not aware of this issue. In the meantime, can you please give some hints and tips for the above mentioned issues related to banned users and promotional content? Thanks a lot!
@Argerra: Before editing any farther on this topic, please answer my questions. Who is "we", and are you being paid to edit or expected to do so as a duty of employment? If you should make any further edits or requests without a direct answer to those questions, I will block you from editing. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: I have read the article you have send me related to Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and I have made the changes on my user page and disclosed that I have affiliations with the company that I have edited the article for. Since I was not aware that this disclosure has to be made on my user page, I do apologize and I am very grateful for your notice. Do you need any other information or disclosure?
@Argerra: Alright, I see that you've made the required disclosure. It's not quite in the right format, but I'll credit the effort nonetheless. So, to answer your question. The page wasn't just edited by a Jeremy112233 sock, it was created by them. Those accounts were a massive spammer sock farm editing in defiance of our requirements of disclosure of payment, and articles created by them are routinely deleted. Chances are very good that they were paid to create that article. So far as promotional content, let's look at the latest version. "Zemana’s focus is on developing security products including additional level of protection" (meaningless marketese, protection from what, how?), "The products have been continuously certified by independent test companies" (sales brochure junk), "It is privately held and to this day remains a technology-driven security solutions provider" (What day is that? And there aren't "solutions", there's software or widgets or something like that, "solutions" is meaningless marketese), " In 2007, Zemana presented its pioneer product" (we wouldn't throw in marketese junk like "pioneer"), "Zemana founders came up with a product based on behavioral characteristics, so any unexpected activity on a computer is blocked automatically" (that's a huge claim, and it's "sourced" to a blog. Blogs are not reliable sources.) That's just the first few paragraphs, the whole thing is shot through with garbage like that. Then it's followed by a massive laundry list of products with positive pull quotes about them, which is again right out of a sales brochure. So, the article was created by a banned user, and was to this day promotional. We do not and will not host promotional content; all articles are required to be strictly neutral in both tone and content. Since that is almost impossible to do with something you have an interest in, please strictly follow our conflict of interest guidelines going forward. Anything you do in regards to something you're paid for needs to be reviewed by another editor without such a conflict of interest. In practice, this means that if you want to try creating the article again, you need to create it as a draft and have it reviewed by articles for creation. If you successfully do that, you need to propose edits on the article's talk page and request that another editor (use the template, don't select a particular editor) review them and make them if appropriate rather than making them yourself. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: Thanks for the help. Will follow your guidelines from now!

Christian Dior Ready-to-Wear Collections and Shows

@Seraphimblade: Hello. I am writing to discuss your recent speedy deletion of not only my recent article; but unfortunately, several others as well, even one that I had been awarded a Barnstar for. Would you be willing to userfy the deleted content (and restore) to my sandbox so that I can work on improving them? I am trying to find a mentor to help me with my prose and phrasing so that these articles don't "misread" as advertisements. You indicated my use of quotes, which I thought would be appropriate, especially since everything is attributed. Do you have any other specific concerns or suggestion? As I indicated in our previous exchange, I am committed to developing this neglected area of Wikipedia, one with a marginalized audience. It would be helpful to collaborate on an approved template so that I can ensure that the Wikipedia guidelines are being met and I can continue my research and cataloguing of this underserved section. THANK YOU! User:Lisacarolinamartinez Lisacarolinamartinez (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Lisacarolinamartinez: I don't necessarily have any objection to userfying them. I'd have to stub them down (G11 is a global criterion, so they'd be susceptible to deletion again in their current state), but you could still use the history to pull out any reliable references.

But the prose itself is really the issue. Attribution is certainly one aspect of quoting, but that's only one thing. First off, the number of quotes used is beyond excessive. If even 10% of an article consists of direct quotes, that would be getting into very questionable territory, and these articles are way past that mark. Also, however, direct quotes are not a way of doing an end run around neutrality. We should paraphrase what reliable references say, ensuring that in the process of doing so, we make it into neutral and factual information rather than breathless gushing.

That's an issue with all the articles. I suspect the rest of these are as well, but some specific problems there. The lead in that one is by and large alright, though we could do with a bit less name dropping of affiliations and individuals. For purposes of this article, those don't really matter and can be omitted.

Now that I'm looking at a particular one very closely, there are some referencing issues as I look at the first section. For example, we have "under the direction of Bill Gaytten" referenced by [4], but that just has one throwaway line about him. In fact, it has little more text than that one throwaway line at all. If he didn't merit more mention than that, he doesn't merit mention in the article either. Next up is "It was only his second collection since John Galliano’s dismissal from the house." The cited reference is [5]. That source mentions Galliano in passing, but again, not as something of much importance, and it doesn't at all support how many shows had happened in the intervening time frame. Next, "The ladylike silhouettes referenced the Dior archives." That's first a matter of subjective of opinion, so we'd attribute it rather than saying it as a matter of fact "in Wikipedia's voice". But the cited reference, [6], doesn't even use the word "ladylike" or, so far as I can find, any synonym, and also doesn't state or allude to any "archives". Next, "According to Style.com, haute couture was a major influence on the collection with wider necklines, wrapped bodices, bubble skirts, and bar jackets in gazaar, organza, silk, and tulle. The palette ranged from graphic black and white to softer pale pink and blue with pops of red." That's the kind of attribution we should see to subjective impressions. Again, the source used was [7]. By the way, if you're going to use a reference more than once, you should name it and bundle the references to it. I can show you how to do that if you don't know, but that's not a particularly major thing. What is, again, is that the reference doesn't seem to support what you're saying. I looked for "haute", "wrapped", "bodice", etc., and came up empty on a lot of it. And, again, couldn't even really find any synonyms. If you just looked at the photos and thought that's what they looked like, that won't work; we stay to what the source actually verifies and saw fit to discuss.

So, on to the promotional tone in general. First off, across all of them, the peacock adjectives need toned way, way down. The purple language also needs really toned down. So instead of "The Christian Dior Ready-to-Wear Spring 2012 Runway Show was presented on September 29, 2011 under the direction of Bill Gaytten at a tented Musee Rodin", try something like "The spring/summer 2012 show was held on September 29, 2011 at the Musee Rodin." Repeating the name every last time is typical of marketese, but if the shows all carry a common naming convention, repeating it every time isn't really needed, and it looks like at least in that case they do. The naming convention should be mentioned in the lead section of the list. Of course if they're all uniquely named or one doesn't follow the convention the name should be stated in each instance, and that may be true in some of these cases. The rest is tremendously excessive detail, from a "who's who" list of names of attendees and models to the finest of detail about the clothes. What would be more appropriate for a list-style article there is to review the sources about it, find the common theme they tend to agree on, and note that, whether that be that they found it conservative, envelope-pushing, boring, whatever have you. If they substantially tended to note a particular color, style, whatever have you, that probably bears a mention as well, but only if they found it particularly notable. If there was a lot of disagreement among critics, note the commonly held positions and summarize the reasons each held that position. And then just stuff like "For Fall, Simons wanted to explore the Dior woman’s primal instincts." That's unreferenced, and it could be straight out of a marketing brochure. That's not something you'd find in an encyclopedia article.

So, in the end, stick to facts reliable references state without embellishing them with your own impressions, make sure when you paraphrase them that you make them into neutral language and attribute rather than state as fact subjective impressions, use an encyclopedic tone rather than writing that one would expect to find in a glossy magazine, and stay away from any unneeded adjectives or purple phrasing. When done, you should be looking to have probably one paragraph that sums up the basic facts about the show (where and when was it held, who was the head of it, etc.), and another with a summary (not extensive detail) of how it was received by reviewers and critics. If the references consistently found an attendee or a model there to be particularly notable, certainly mention that, but we don't need a laundry list. I know that's a good bit to digest, but I'd like to see you succeed at these, as it really is an area I suspect we do suffer from some lack of coverage in. I'd love to see good encyclopedia articles on it, and I think that's very possible to have here, but at the same time, we won't act as a host of marketing material for them or anyone. Anyway let me know if you have any questions, and if you'd like them sent to your userspace or to drafts. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: Thank you so much for your very detailed and prompt response. This is extremely helpful and I will refer to your notes as I move forward in this process. I definitely didn't write my opinion or embellish, I either pulled and paraphrased comments from written reviews or transcribed video interviews. It's a lot of material for each article, 10-12 sections per article so I would have to review my links again to ensure that I am not conflating one citation with another. As for the naming convention, I was just trying to be precise, because the collections are distinctive in the sense that they are shown separately. I also mentioned the creative directors by name, because they have changed over time. And that is a fact that all the critics/reviewers mention, especially with Christian Dior, because John Galliano's dismissal was so scandalous. Admittedly, they don't list all of the models and guests within a review, but there are some who receive honorable mentions from time to time. I can definitely tighten those up or eliminate them altogether, I just wanted to provide more detail, rather than less to make the article more informative and robust. All the critics cover the basics of who, what when, where, and why and they also consistently discuss silhouette, fabrication, palette, and design details, which is why I chose to include those details. I didn't realize that additional quotes were frowned upon. I didn't want to plagiarize, which is why I thought it was important to keep the quotes in tact. So, it sounds like I need to strip these articles to their bare bones. I've been purposefully listing models and attendees and linking them to their respective biographical articles, because I thought doing so makes our readers more likely to see an article/visit a page, which I thought was a good thing... You mention,"For Fall, Simons wanted to explore the Dior woman’s primal instincts." I tried to paraphrase the WWD article, which reads,"For fall, Raf Simons wanted to explore her more sexual side by taking her natural urges out of the garden, to a place where more primal instincts dominate: the animal world." I hope my response, in part, alleviates any concerns you might have that I have incorporating my impressions. I understand that my opinions are irrelevant for these purposes, I am pulling these descriptions, which are considerably more extravagant, from respected trade/industry publications and experts in this field. I very much appreciate your support, encouragement, and acknowledgement that there is a lack of coverage in this area. I also appreciate the opportunity to have a constructive dialogue. I really do want to improve them and become a stronger Wikipedian, not only because I have invested a lot of time and energy and it's certainly not about ego--but rather because, I want to create something enduring with inherent value that people will reference for many years to come! LisacarolinamartinezLisacarolinamartinez (talk) 04:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. You didn't mention which you wanted, so I'll just put the articles in your userspace. You can of course move them to drafts if you'd prefer them there. It'll probably be this evening (MDT) since I'm on my mobile right now; I'll do it once I'm at an actual computer. Let me know if you have any other questions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I've put them into your userspace. I stubbed them down so they won't be subject to deletion again, but the history will still be there to get references etc. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Michael H. Fleischner

You deleted a page referencing my biography. Please advise. This was not created by me but has been on wikipedia for more than a decade. I'm not sure why you felt the need to delete given the accurate references and appropriate justification. Please advise. Kindly, Mike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfleischner (talk • contribs)

@Mfleischner: The article was written like a CV rather than an encyclopedia article. That's promotional; we do not accept "profile" type articles. It was also written by an editor who, at the time of the article's creation, was already banned from editing. We've since found that this individual was running a large number of sock puppet accounts to edit for pay without making the required disclosures. Both editing while banned and editing for pay without disclosure violate our terms of use. For both being promotional and being written by a banned editor, the article was deleted. I don't know if you hired someone to write it, and you don't have to tell me, but if that's something you do, be very selective in it. A lot of people out there are less than ethical, don't really follow the rules, and frequently write stuff that winds up deleted. (And if I had to guess, I'll bet a lot of them are nowhere to be found if their client asks for a refund when it does.) There are some good ones who do know and follow the rules, but there seem to be an awful lot who do not. Also, it has not been there for more than a decade, it was created in August 2012. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Please restore an article for cleaning up

Could you please restore Tetyana Ramus article to my private space like User:Perohanych/Tetyana Ramus as I plan to cleanup it to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. --Perohanych (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: Please, see above. --Perohanych (talk) 08:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Perohanych: First, patience please. This is a volunteer project, none of us are available 24x7. That aside, no, I cannot restore it. The article was heavily promotional since its creation, and promotional material is not permitted anywhere on Wikipedia, userspace included. Before we proceed, please answer with either a "yes" or a "no" as to whether you are being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia, including being asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment. If that is true for you, you must make the mandatory disclosures before editing about or discussing the subject further. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I am being compensated to edit Wikipedia by getting pleasure by the fact, that talented people from my country become known in the whole world. Tetyana Ramus is a former Ukrainian TV star and now she is a designer of women's clothing with it's own famous brand. There are more than enough sources that prove the fact. Please send me the article by e-mail, and I will cleanup it. --Perohanych (talk) 11:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I'll take that as a no. Email I can do, let me know if you'd like plain text or the wikimarkup, but honestly, you might be better off just using the references and starting over on the article text. The entire article is written in the style of a CV. It constantly refers to her as "Tetyana" rather than "Ramus" (we use full name on first mention and last name only thereafter), and just looking very briefly, I see a bunch of unreferenced marketing ("mastered the professional career of the model", "was the face of Porsche, Noblesse, Color Me, La Perla advertising campaigns", "is known for several public investments", "regularly participates as an invited expert", "in the popular discussion TV-shows" (don't throw in extra adjectives like "popular"), "And that style, as a concept, is an integral part of not only the image of politics, show industry and model business"), and on and on like that. Articles must be strictly neutral in tone and content, which means in practice that they should stick to stating facts from reliable sources without throwing in a bunch of adjectives. They're not meant to "talk up" the subject. I would strongly recommend you use a draft and have articles for creation review any new article you would plan on putting in, and ensure that each and every statement is properly referenced. Also, while not the most serious issue, since this is the English Wikipedia, please be sure to use English quotes (""), not the «» style. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, I will use all your kind advices. I'd like a wikimarkup. My e-mail is perohanych@gmail.com. Thank you again, indeed! --Perohanych (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Condenced milk with suger



This is a kind of a "barnstar" in Ukrainian Wikipedia — for your assistance to editors! --Perohanych (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Well thanks! I've sent what was there by email to you. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion - Laser Vision Scotland

I have just published my first article. I selected a company I recently had treatment with - Laser Vision Scotland (A Scottish Ophthalmology Company). The article was marked for speedy deletion on the grounds of A7 and G11. Clearly I need to work on this article further in order for it to qualify for inclusion on wikipedia. Could you provide me with a copy of the deleted article so i could try adding / changing detail. Also, I'd be very grateful for any specific feedback you may have that would help me have my first article published?

@Vickylbrewster: As I generally ask with people who have a G11 deletion, first please clarify whether you are being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia, including being asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment. If you are, please make the required disclosures before we proceed further. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not employed by Laser Vision Scotland and am not being paid for writing this article. I work for a healthcare company (Spire Healthcare) who are affiliated with Laser Vision Scotland but I have no financial gain from LVS which is a separate company. I had written an article for a newsletter and thought was potentially good enough to be used have my first article published on wiki. Any help appreciated, thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vickylbrewster (talk • contribs)

Alright, thank you for clarifying that. And while certain things may work in a newsletter, depending on their policies, we require all material to be strictly neutral in both tone and content. Looking at the deleted article, "...a range of eye care services..." (nonspecific, meaningless fluff), the entire "key people" section talking up how cool and well-qualified those people are, the "affiliations" which is yet more look how qualified they are (it also uses "Mr.", which we never use, we refer to a person by full name on first mention and last only on subsequent), "values" which is just marketing fluff, and then "services", and well, if you can't see how that's inappropriate and promotional I really don't know what to say. Then there's a massive laundry list of links and publications that (I think?) are by people affiliated with the organization, which looks quite a lot like spamming. As with any new editor, I'd strongly recommend writing a new article as a draft (in this case, you can click on Draft:Laser Vision Scotland to start a draft), and have the article reviewed by articles for creation. Creating appropriate new articles is a challenge, and I notice several of your other edits were reverted for that reason as well. So please carefully review what we mean by neutral writing, which I linked to above, and let me know if you have any questions. Generally speaking, best to stick to basic facts verified by reliable sources, and keep your tone as neutral as you can. Articles don't get deleted for being dry or dull, but they do for being promotional. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, that's really helpful. I'll give it another try. It's a learning curve!

Submission of COI article

: Hi there, Thanks for unblocking me. I have a biography of myself that I want to post. Obviously, under your guidelines there is a conflict of interest. How do I post it for review by a disinterested editor?Jim Zirin (talk) 18:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)September 30, 2017
@Jzirin: The standard way would be to create the article as a draft. You can do that by clicking on this link: Draft:James Zirin. Make sure you stick to facts verified by reliable sources and use a neutral tone. Once you think the article is ready to go into the encyclopedia, you can request review by articles for creation. The AfC reviewer will either move it into the encyclopedia, or will point out any problems that need to be corrected first. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


Please recover Marisa Peer article

Please recover Marisa Peer article and nominate it for slow (normal) deletion. She appeared in the UK and US TV shows and authored 4 books. The deletion of this article should be carefully weighted by the community. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 07:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

No. The community has very clearly decided that promotional articles may be deleted on sight. That's been both policy and practice for many years. We do not tolerate promotion of anyone or anything. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I understand your point of view. Please give me the link where I can appeal your personal view (your decision) and discuss the substance of the article with the community. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 10:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
If you still disagree, you can request a review at deletion review. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I talked to Noyster who is my senior buddy at Wikipedia since registration and he suggested two things: 1) disclose my COI at profile (done) 2) ask you to make a "userfication" of the page so that I can work on it and remove any apparent promotionalism. So this is what I am asking for. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
@Bbarmadillo: Alright, we've got a bit more serious of a situation here. The mandatory paid editing disclosures are a requirement. You must make them before you make the first edit about a topic you're being paid for, not once you get caught. Failure to do so is a violation of our terms of use and a reason to block you from editing altogether. Have you disclosed each and every time you were paid to edit, and do you agree to do so going forward without prompting? Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
You are 102% right. It is the first time that I made paid entries and I didn't know all the nuances. I am very sorry for vilating the terms of use. Thank you for the clarification of the rules. This will not happen again. My paid entries have been disclosed in full and I do agree to do so without promting (not sure, I will continue the practice, though). As to MP article, I just didn't have time to state COI after the warning. I really do think that the person is notable and the article should stay. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, doesn't seem the first time. However, you need to fix your disclosure. The required disclosure is "employer, client, and affiliation". The disclosures need to directly state who employed you to do the editing. (It does not require you reveal your own identity.) If you were employed by Acme PR to edit John Doe, the disclosure must state something to the effect "I'm employed by Acme PR whose client is John Doe". If you're employed directly by Doe, the disclosure needs to reflect that too ("I was hired by John Doe to edit the article on John Doe"). If you'll do that, I'll userfy and stub the text of the article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I thought this kind of disclosure is needed only at the page itself, like in example here. This is what I planned to do for MP page is well. Do I need to duplicate this information at my user profile? -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 13:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
You didn't do so at Talk:Marisa Peer. I just looked. There's no "plan" to do it, it's required at the first edit. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I didn't know that, I told you. And I didn't have the chance to do it after the warning as the page was speedy deleted. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, now we're on to some more issues. You directly edited the Patrick Sweeney article and directly created the Marisa Peer article. That's not alright. Per the conflict of interest requirements, if you have a COI on an existing subject, you propose edits on the talk page and request review of those edits. If you would like to create an article for which you have a COI, you start it as a draft and have it reviewed by articles for creation. Aside from reverting blatant vandalism, you should never be directly editing an article on which you have a COI, those edits should always be reviewed by editors without any conflict. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, OK, didn't know that either. Thank you for the explanation. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)]
So the correct way is that you give me article for userfication, I clear it up, state COI and submit it as a draft, do I read you right? -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, we can do that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Now at User:Bbarmadillo/Marisa Peer. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

ANI notice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#deletion_of_legitimate_article_that_uses_correct_WP:MANUAL_and_WP:COMPANY_and_accusation_that_i_work_for_said_company.

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Carey James Balboa (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Wow. Impressive throw. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

added Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem
removed Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
  • A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

University of Pretoria Faculty of Theology

Good day , I am contacting you with regards to a Wikipedia page that we wrote on behalf of our client: University of Pretoria - Faculty of Theology, what was deleted on the 25th of August 2017 due to the violation of the G11 rule. I have read similar posts that have been deleted because of the same violation, but what we are kindly requesting from you is to kindly provide us with specific parts that contravene the rule so that we may rectify them ASAP.

The name of the page is University of Pretoria Faculty of Theology. Also, if possible, could you restore the article to draft mode so that we can edit it as per your recommendations.

Looking forward to your response.

Kind regards - --NatposZA (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@NatposZA: First, who is "we"? An account must be used by only a single individual. Secondly, you are telling me flat out that you have been editing in defiance of our terms of use by failing to make the disclosures which are mandatory when one is editing for pay, including editing at the request of or on behalf of one's employer. The entire article was an advertisement, essentially a massive faculty and course brochure. I absolutely will not undelete that, to draft or otherwise, and will block you from editing if you make any more edits about the subject, including to discuss it further, without making those mandatory disclosures. If you edit for pay on a different subject, individual disclosures are required for each and every subject on which you edit for pay, and you must follow our conflict of interest requirements in such cases, including putting your suggested edits or articles up for review by non-conflicted editors rather than making or creating them directly. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for the clean up :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Micro-budding, Mani Skaria, US Citrus

Hello, the above articles were deleted, citing G11. There were references showing the importance of the citrus scientist's contributions to the citrus industry, especially as it relates to the greening disease. There is no compensation for this article writing. I would be happy to submit these articles as a draft for review, and to re-word promotional sounding syntax, but can I get a copy of the articles back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppmd 4 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

G11 is a global criterion and promotional material isn't permitted anywhere, so even if I restored them to a draft they'd be immediately eligible to delete again. You are certainly welcome to give it another try, ensuring to stay completely neutral, sticking to facts the sources verify, and avoiding a "talking up" tone. Articles don't get deleted for being dry or dull, but they do for being promotional. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I will certainly change things up, and avoid any of the "talking up" tone - how can I get the articles back to a draft mode? Also do you have any advice on specific verbage in the articles to change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppmd 4 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Verbiage is some of the problem. You're using peacock terms repeatedly like "innovative", "prestigious", stuff like that. A bigger problem, though, is that you're making sweeping "talking up" claims about scientific accomplishments, but "sourcing" them to references like newspapers and agriculture blogs. For claims like that, we'd generally want to see that they are peer-reviewed and have been published. Newspapers are not always the most reliable sources when it comes to science journalism, and certainly anonymous blog entries are not. Also, there's no need to make a big old walled garden, all three subjects aren't independently notable (if even one is). Rather, if the subject is notable, put that in one article, and have redirects to it. The articles essentially repeat one another. You can make a draft by prepending "Draft:" to a page name, so Draft:Example would make a draft for a page called "Example". Once you think the article is ready for mainspace, send it to review through articles for creation. If they agree they'll move it to the main encyclopedia, otherwise they'll tell you what needs fixing so you can keep working on it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

It's obvious you really think through and spend a lot of time on these analysis. I really appreciate that, and I will definitely make the appropriate changes! I think I will combine the articles into just "micro-budding." I don't have copies of the original articles which were saved, can I get copies of those deleted ones to use as a backbone for the new article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppmd 4 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I can email them to you if you like. Let me know if you'd prefer plain text or wikimarkup. However, please note that the rule against promotional material applies everywhere on Wikipedia, so if reposted without changes, even as drafts, they would be subject to being deleted again. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, we appreciate it, plain text would be fine at ppmd04@gmail.com. Understood.

Speedy Deletion Datari Turner Productions

Hi, I noticed you deleted the page I created before answering my questions on the talk page. I noticed the article was flagged as the contributor as being paid to create the page and I can assure you I have never been paid or asked to make the page. I have never met Mr. Turner and I will probably never meet him in my life. I am a fan. He is a black role model for youth who aspire to be something in show biz. Under his company Datari Turner productions he has produced and written Film and T.V. shows and worked with actors and actresses such as Demi Moore, Fat Joe, Lil Romeo, Jay-Z to only mention a few. Movies he has worked on have been nominated for Sun Dance Film Festival awards. I guess I am having a hard time seeing why that is not notable. On the talk page I asked how I could improve the page before you go ahead and delete it, but rather than respond to me you just deleted the page. I was wondering if you could speak to that now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macjesu (talk • contribs) 05:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Macjesu: Well, to be quite honest with you, to claim you just happened to show up on your own accord, creating similar "articles" that were in fact advertisements, to someone who claimed to be "PR" and did similar things, stretches credulity pretty far. Then you created a "draft" that was a couple of single-event stories from marginal sources acting as a veneer over an exhaustive product list, and rather than having that draft evaluated by articles for creation (which, by the time a page on the subject has already been salted, is pretty much required), you tried to sneak it in at a little different title. Go write a draft, get it approved by AfC, and I'll be happy to unprotect the original title so the AfC reviewer can move it to the encyclopedia. Try tweaking the title a little again and putting it in yourself, and I'll block you from editing altogether. But you'll need better referencing, and the massive product list will need to go. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: thank you for addressing my questions. I will admit that I am new to Wikipedia and I thought of this as a way to contribute seeing as I have not had a chance to write an article for something that is not already on the site. My initial article that was deleted was written using the summary of Datari Turner on his imdb page, which maybe is why the page was "similar" to the other deleted articles? I cannot say for sure, all I know is growing up hip hop is an amazing show and it's what brought me to learn about the company. I will try re-writing the page as a draft and getting it approved through AfC as you suggested but if that doesn't work I guess I will be thwarted in my attempts to create a wiki page for once. I'm having fun learning to edit though. Thanks, I didn't mean to be rude with the way I created the page.
No troubles. You certainly didn't have the greatest of timing, but well, you can hardly be blamed for that. If you want to take a go at doing a draft and see if you can get it up to standards, you're certainly welcome to. Like I said, if AfC approves it, I'll be happy to lift the protection so they can put it in. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Option to contest

You have deleted my page, a bio on Roberto Malizia for (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). He is a public figure and I only wrote about his life and career, siting over 25 article written about him. I don't understand the connection with advertising. Please help me understand how I violated the G11 rule on a bio. You have many bios on Wiki and I only stated facts that can be researched.

You have deleted my page Willis & Vere, with no option to contest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgebruv772 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Georgebruv772: That is correct. The community has agreed that certain types of pages may be deleted immediately. Promotional articles and advertisements are one such type, criterion G11 at the policy I linked. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain why this is any different? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jollyboat_(comedy_act) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgebruv772 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Other stuff exists is not a valid rationale. Before we proceed further, please clarify whether you are being paid or compensated to work on this article, including being asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment. If so, you will need to make the required disclosures. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I can honestly answer no to all of the above. All the information is true, and I would argue it is not promoting an individual product, but only the company so much as other Wikipedia pages do. Thanks for getting back to me, hope we can work something out. Georgebruv772 08:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC) Hi, can I get a response please?

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
You're a brave man- fair play on taking on the Holly Neher II morass and (hopefully!) wading on through to the other side ;) — fortunavelut luna 22:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! It was certainly not the first long, rambling discussion I've waded through to close. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
And I dare say as long as you don't think it'll be the last, you'll be OK! ;) Take care, — fortunavelut luna 23:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I look forward to the inevitable DRV. It couldn't be any more bizarre than the last one. Reyk YO! 10:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Help design a new feature to stop harassing emails

Hi there,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team plans to start develop of a new feature to allow users to restrict emails from new accounts. This feature will allow an individual user to stop harassing emails from coming through the Special:EmailUser system from abusive sockpuppeting accounts.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you voted or commented in the 2016 Community Wishlist discussion or IdeaLab discussion about letting users restrict who can send them email.

You can leave comments on this discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

It is important to hear from a broad range of people who are interested in the design of the tool, so we hope you join the discussion.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

Roberto Pinelli

Hi, I have seen that the article has been cancelled for promotion, it may be true, I don't know, but the biography is really similar to that of Michael Lawless, please compare both articles. Except the citizenship (Australian and Swiss, both are very similar biographies) I checked the relevance of Mr.Pinelli and he applies a correction system, not invasive, which is recognized as a scientific system to correct some eye's problems and this is the reason why he has been invited to join to the The International Intra-Ocular Implant Club (IIIC). What has been your consideration about that? May you at least motivate a little bit your decision? It makes sense considering this similarity. --Ilario (talk) 12:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ilario: Well, that one will be gone soon enough anyway, since it's also promotional. The article in question was also promotional (we wouldn't link "MD" in the very first paragraph, "recognised worldwide as an authority in eye surgery", "He is a pioneer...", "He was invited to join the exclusive..." (no links in article text, one link to an official website is permitted in the "External links" section), "He was the first surgeon to perform Femto Lasik Lux®" (no trademark symbols in articles)). So, yes, it was promotional and deleted for that reason. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Low-maintenance archive box

Hello Seraphimblade! Happened to see your recent edit, updating your archive box. In case you would like a labor-saving improvement, the following will automatically give you an archive box with all the entries numbered:

  • {{archives|search=yes}}.

It never needs to be changed when new archive files are created. For the default appearance of the box, see my user talk. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Well thanks! I'll have to move the existing archive pages since it's apparently case-sensitive, so I'll set that up once I've got some time to fuss with that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Prosperity Indiana Draft deleted, asking for text

Hey. I talked to a user (swistertwister), as he was cited as having deleted my draft after submittal. The reason was listed as G11, which he continued to agree with despite my neutrality in reporting on the organization, Prosperity Indiana. The user stated in the deletion log is now you, and I wanted to reach out to you. I am not sure if you will discuss placing the article live on WIKI, but I asked 'swistertwister' and am now asking you to somehow give me the text from the deleted draft. The WIKI page was completed by an undergraduate class at Ball State University. I am writing on behalf of my professor, who would also like access to the text. While constructing the page, we were not aware the draft would be hidden form us upon disapproval. I am also happy to explain how the material is not promotional by nature, but was a class decision for how to educated the communities that work with the organization about relevant project and experience. So, if you can make it live, that would be great; otherwise, if you can send me the text in the draft, that would also be appreciated. 18:24, 19 August 2017 deletion time Rileysandel (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC) RileySandel

@Rileysandel: I can email you the text if you'd like, provided you'll agree not to put it back as it was. If so, let me know if you'd like plain text or wikimarkup. However, the article was a "get to know ya" style piece and a catalog of services offered, as well as talking up how good and necessary those services are. All that may be true, but it was largely unreferenced, and we don't allow promotion of anyone or anything on Wikipedia, not even good causes. If you'd like to write a "profile" style page about the organization, there are many websites that do permit such material, but this is not one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: Emailing the plain text would work wonderfully. I will not place it back on Wiki as is. We did not mean for the text to portray any promotional motive, but I am aware of the interpretation and am understanding. If you can, please email the plain text to |rmsandel@bsu.edu|. Thank you for your assistance! Rileysandel (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC) Rileysandel

Spaced em dashes

Dude, you have spaced em dashes on your user page. If it was an article, I'd fix it. Use spaced en dashes, or unspaced em dashes, to be consistent with most of the world's style manuals. Dicklyon (talk) 05:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

If there were something I could care any less about, I think you'd have a hard time finding it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 24

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 24, August-September 2017

  • User Group update
  • Global branches update
    • Star Coordinator Award - last quarter's star coordinator: User:Csisc
  • Wikimania Birds of a Feather session roundup
  • Spotlight: Wiki Loves Archives
  • Bytes in brief

Arabic, Kiswahili and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of SafeSwiss

Hi Seraphimblade,

I notice that you Speedy Deleted the article on an instant messaging platform called SafeSwiss. You cited G-11 as a reason for the deletion, yet it doesn't appear that there was any discussion as to why/whether the article should be deleted (unless I've missed something).

The article cited articles in numerous articles from widely-read tech and general news publications, including News.com.au and Huffington Post.

I was wondering if there was any specific concerns that you had with the article or its tone? Was there anything in particular in that article that should have been phrased differently? Was there anything that you think should have been included or excluded?

If so, I'm keen to rectify these issues, if it's at all possible.

Also, is there any chance of getting a copy of the article back?

--AmishThrahser2017 (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@AmishThrasher2017: As I'll ask anyone with a G11 deletion, please first clarify whether you're being paid or compensated to edit on this subject, including being asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment. If so, you'll need to make the required disclosures before we proceed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I've sent it over to you. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yandex.Mail

You made a big mistake by deleting the article "Yandex.Mail." Yandex is a well-known company in the world and the main concurent of Google. Recently articles about the Yandex services were set for deletion, but have defended them. So give the article back--Ffederal (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I have checked and found no recent AfDs regarding this article. If you're referring to one in particular, you'll need to give me a specific reference to it. If you're referring to other similar articles, other stuff exists is never a valid argument; the individual article is evaluated on its own merits, not its similarity to anything else. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
1, 2 The information in many books about this service. It's authoritative sources--Ffederal (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
If you're able to write an appropriate article actually using those sources, you can do that. You'll need to ensure to stick to only neutrally presenting facts the references actually verify. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Makin' This Boy Go Crazy

Good afternoon! Why was Makin' This Boy Go Crazy deleted instead of merged, or perhaps, closed as "No consensus"? If there is no good reason to delete the history, the default should be merge. However, the article in place did go beyond just a track listing, and the term was a redirect before I created the article. Finally, IMHO, there was not substantial discussion about the topic. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

There is neither a lack of consensus nor a consensus to merge. The consensus was clearly to delete. The only "keep" argument was based upon notability being inherited, which, as a couple of people pointed out, is not valid. The discussion was up for several weeks and several editors participated. The decision stands. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:CLEAN

Hello Seraphimblade:
You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion.
To join the project, just add your name to the member list. North America1000 09:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

Administrator changes

added Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93
removed Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Flamingods

I see you deleted Flamingods for a variety of reasons. I had accepted the draft last year. If you have time, please confirm that the article had been changed since, rather than I failed to do a proper COPYVIO check in February 2016. I want to be sure I didn't promote bad product. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, assuming it was other editors that ruined the article, I'd like to know who it was so I can properly reprimand them. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: Well, their "official site" is pretty much an exact copy of what was accepted. It doesn't list a publication date, so it's at least conceivably possible that they copied from Wikipedia rather than the other way around. However, the article at the edit accepting it is still full of, for example "...joining forces on various musical projects and detangling myriad influences from other lands and times...", "...experimental music that captured the imagery and spirituality of far flung cultures...", "... one fateful 8-hour chalet jam at ATP festival later and Flamingods had officially graduated from it’s initial solo bedroom project in Bahrain to a full fledged band...", "The group puts a focus on exploration and experimentation, often taking influence from different cultures around the world by use of an extensive collection of instruments from as far as Nepal, Thailand, Indonesia, Turkey, Japan and Tanzania.", and that's solely from the lead and first paragraph. The rest of the article is all in the same vein. That should have been not only clearly rejected as promotional, but nominated for G11. It was almost a couple years ago, though, so you may not have been as experienced then. But in the future, don't accept articles with promotional or "talking up" language, copyvio or not. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, I screwed up. Thanks for cleaning up my mess. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Please review and give your advice

Following our recent discussion on COI article submissions I would like to ask for your help reviewing Joe Ikhinmwin article. Did I place the COI tag at the correct place? Sandbox articles don't have Talk pages so I placed it on top. I also added the information on the article at my user page. Please confirm that I follow the process correctly. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bbarmadillo: I've been swamped with a software release, but it looks like you've gotten things worked out. I appreciate your willingness to work with it and do it correctly. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
:@Seraphimblade: Thank you. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Help with article contribution

The article, Arjan Roskam, was recently reverted to an earlier, spam-free version. I understand the reasoning, and it was not my intention to spam. I'm wondering if you'll help me make legitimate contributions to this page, as I believe there are relevant sources for this individual, as well as my own personal photographs. It would be great if I could send you a draft or drafts of proposed contributions before any attempt to edit the page again. I assume you are very busy, any help here would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Barrwk (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Barrwk: It looks like this is pretty much the only subject you've edited on. If you're being paid or compensated to edit about this (including being asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment), then that's okay, but you are required to disclose that fact if it's so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Ill advised at Depth charge

Don't make stuff up. Who advised May?

Glrx (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Glrx: "Ill advised" is a common expression meaning poorly thought through. It does not literally mean that someone was advised. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
And to act stupidly means to act without common sense. There was advice about the Japanese weapon systems. Those would be military secrets. There was no advice to spill such secrets. If he contemplated revealing the secrets, then his revelation was deliberate. If he acted stupidly, then he's off the hook. Otherwise, it is treason.
I get the sense of a politically correct driveby without consulting or understanding the material. People act stupidly. The author was not giving his opinion that the act was stupid but rather that Lockwood and company thought the act was stupid. Thing about a submariner who opens up a Pearl Harbor newspaper and reads about the Japanese not knowing to set their depth charges deeper.
Some dictionaries state that a synonym for "ill-advised" is stupid.
Glrx (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 November 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Behavioral and content dispute

Hi! Im contacting you because you are listed as an editor willing to provide behavioral and content assistance. I would like you to take a look at the content dispute and the behavior of the editors Katolophyromai, Khirurg and Dr. K as well Kuru, the administrator that backs them .

The full content dispute of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pythagoras is found here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=811537461 since a fellow friend editor Dr. K who seems to be a meatpuppet of the editor I am having the dispute with erased my last entry. I would like you to look at the sources I have provided and my analysis on the source he has provided (which leaves out plenty of ancient biographers that state Pythagoras's father was from Tyre) and to bring an objective view into this discussion.

I would also like you to look into this editors behaviors as him and fellow editor friends (Dr K and Khirurg) seem to be meatpuppets as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppetry. When editor Katolophyromai felt like he was losing the debate he resorted to accusing me of sockpuppeting to his fellow meatpuppet Dr. K which you can look at here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dr.K.#ViamarisBalbi_is_back_under_two_new_sockpuppet_accounts

This is the second (or perhaps third) time Katolophyromai and Khirurg has gotten help from his fellow friend editor Dr. K who does not participate in the discussions/talk page in a productive/objective way but is always ready to take their side and game the system as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system to support his friend editors with their edit reversals. The previous time they accused ViamarisBalbi of personal attacks against the editor he was having a content dispute and got him blocked when in reality if you look at his appeal on his talk page he really wasnt making personal attacks. Dr. K always resorts to administrator Kuru who always takes their side and does not seem to care that editors Katolophyromai, Khirurg and Dr. K are involved in the edit reversal of sourced contents which is obvious vandalism and POV pushing. You can see previous examples of their meatpuppetry in the following cases:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thales_of_Miletus#Phoenicia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thales_of_Miletus#Trash_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thales_of_Miletus#Ancient_sources_and_19th_century_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Euclid#Arabian_sources_of_Euclid https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Euclid&diff=810206844&oldid=810205477 (Here Dr. K supports Khirug act of vandalism in which Khirug puts down a statement from a very legitimate source and adds his own and removes an important blue link in the sentence) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atomism&diff=809056910&oldid=808621458 (Here Khirug removed ViamarisBalbi edit that has a legitimate source and later here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atomism&diff=810213721&oldid=810211103 Dr. K helps him doing the same Khirug does it again here without a legitimate reason/discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atomism&diff=810230721&oldid=810221056

Katolophyromai, Khirurg and Dr. K as well Kuru, all edit on similar articles related to Ancient Greece and Greek nationalism. It also happens that their usernames all sound Greek and start with letter K which makes their connection seem a bit too obvious and suspicious. I would highly appreciate your time and help on looking on this. ViamarisBalbi and I believe that legitimate sockpuppeting might be the only way to stop this harassment since filling ISP reports for meatpuppeting sometimes get lost in limbo or take too long to be reviewed and these editors wont stop Wikihouding as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding and continue their witch hunt as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Witch_hunt to prevent ViamarisBalbi and CalinicoFire from making sourced contributions. ThanksCalinicoFire (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, please feel free to handle this as you may see fit. But note that CF has filed at 3O, DRN, MEDCOM, and NPOVN and made the same request as this on Xavexgoem's talk page (who hasn't edited here since June). I've closed the DRN and MEDCOM filings, but left the others. Just FYI and best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Indeffed as sock. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
@TransporterMan: Thanks for the heads up. Can't say I'm too shocked to see that result. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

ToolBox Project

Please provide the deleted content so I can improve it and comply with Wikipedia guidelines. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ToolBox_Project&action=edit

Stevepiercy (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Stevepiercy

@Stevepiercy: A few things will be needed first. First, the article was deleted not only for promotion, but also for lack of notability. You'll need to first show me substantial reference material that covers in depth the organization and is reliable and entirely independent of it. If reference material like that about the organization doesn't exist, it isn't an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article at all. Second, you were asked to disclose any potential conflicts of interest, including payments to edit. You'll need to confirm you've done that after having done so as needed. Finally, you'd need to agree to have the deleted material put into a draft, and to have it reviewed by articles for creation rather than putting it back in mainspace yourself. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


@Seraphimblade: the article was deleted before I had any time to comply with the previously stated issues that others brought up. Restating those issues and requirements is unnecessary. I simply need the deleted content so that I can comply with those issues, but I have no record of it because you deleted the page too quickly. It's fine if it's in draft state.

In the future, it would be reasonable to give at least 24 hours (72 hours would be better) for contributors to respond to each issue, rather than obliterating content and alienating contributors. Patience would have allowed me to comply. Thank you. Stevepiercy (talk) 23:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The article will remain deleted until you answer each and every thing I asked. Articles in mainspace are expected to be appropriate from the first edit onward, so no, there will be no "waiting period". Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Asketic

@Seraphimblade: I found a letter in my inbox saying that the /wiki/asketic article is deleted without any comments on improvements. The article was made after the danish branding studio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Types and it is live and well. As I understand users are encouraged to create articles if they have historical value. In the case of Asketic, it is a branding studio in a small country Latvia (less than 2 mil people) and has earned noteable recognition by creating historical Typeface and participating in Riga city branding and also doing work in Latvian design scene through academia.

Please provide constructive feedback so I can amend the page.

All the best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arieltabaks (talk • contribs) 17:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Arieltabaks: As I always ask editors who have had an article deleted for advertising, please first clarify whether you are being paid or compensated to edit about this subject or doing so as part of your job. If any of that is true, please make the required disclosures before we continue. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: Thanks for the fast answer. I don't get paid to make this article, but I do work with Asketic part time. I agree that my judgment might be clouded, but that's why I'm open for other editors to retract any parts that are not suitable. The reason why I'm writing this is that in my own journey through European design scene I've come across E-types https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Types couple of times and admire their work with Typography advances in Denmark. Asketic is one of the rare teams in the country of Latvia that go along similar lines - developing historical typefaces and also working to advance social love for one's city. As I wrote in the article, asketic lead the way hand in hand with other Latvian designers to fight against city's mayor political moves to change the loved Riga symbol. I'm sorry if the article came across as if it was to promote business - the goal is to show a balanced view on an studio that is developing the design scene in Latvia. Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arieltabaks (talk • contribs) 20:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I have the normal recommendations for new editors then. First, it is hard to make an appropriate new article. It's a bit of a challenge even for experienced editors. For new editors, I'd recommend writing a draft, and using the articles for creation process. Drafts are given more latitude, and if rejected the first time, the reviewer will tell you what the issue is that you need to work on. Secondly, it wouldn't hurt to get some experience editing existing articles before jumping into making new ones. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Seraphimblade. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Shinobu Kaze

I think people were still talking about this AfD, ad that it was far from consensus when you closed it. Just my 2 cents.104.163.154.101 (talk) 08:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I will second that. Also 2 supported keep, 2 supported delete. Then why did you close as delete? Wouldn't it have been wiser to wait for a consensus to emerge? gidonb (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
AfD is not a vote. Even if it were, the count was 3-2, including the nominator. But that aside, one keep argument cited irrelevant information (a Japanese Wikipedia article and Google Images), and the other handwaved at sources but refused to actually put them forth for evaluation. Given this, the policy based arguments that actually made their case clearly favored deletion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
For sure not a vote. These statements always start with trivial information. You did count the nominator. I do not jump to conclusions. That's why I ask. It makes my opinions as valid as any even if I do not have the time to reference and, in fact, refuse to single-handedly reference all articles on WP. gidonb (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
You're not required to do anything, that's true. That being said, if you refuse to provide evidence for claims you make, you might find them weighted accordingly. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
However, those who say delete do not provide evidence either. It introduces a biased environment at WP if you discount only opinions of delete sayers for not bringing specific sources. JPL, for example, says delete on almost all non-Mormon biographies, at a high speed. You imply that you take his opinion serious while you discount mine that take much longer to form. It doesn't project well on your AfD closings. gidonb (talk) 02:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Alright. Well, thanks for your opinion on it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome. This may have been, of course, a temporary lapse of judgement. I'm sure that you make good contributions elsewhere. Given the bias to which you in all honesty confessed, I suggest that you reopen the discussion. gidonb (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I "confessed" to nothing, and will not be doing so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
That's unfortunate. It's the best resolution to mistakes made at AfD closure. gidonb (talk) 03:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
If you still disagree, DRV is thataway. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Dexta Daps

Hi Seraphimblade. Would you please restore the article on Jamaican reggae artist Dexta Daps? I believe he is notable based on lots of coverage in reliable independent sources such as this article in the Jamaican Observer. Lots more coverage showing up in a Google News search. Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@FloridaArmy: I note that it'd been userfied for you. Rather than correcting the problems, you moved it directly back to mainspace. I have accordingly deleted it again and create protected the title. While the artist may be notable, it is entirely unacceptable to have fluff in an article like "...sexy short film...", "His fan base includes many females", and "...famous as the home of Jamaican superstars...". If you wish to recreate the article, please do so as a draft and have it reviewed by articles for creation. If AfC approves your draft, I'm happy to unprotect the title to allow it to be moved there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
You're mistaken. I made numerous changes to the article. In particular I tried to address your concerns that it was promtional. Please have a look at the article history.FloridaArmy (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I always look prior to deletion and just did again. You'd made a few tweaks, but I confirmed that all the promotional material I cited above was in the latest revision. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not a mind reader to know what your objections were. Now you've stated them. Several articles note his "fierce" female fan base. One source says "Paying tribute to his attraction of a largely female fan base..". His videos and appeal are signifcantly sexual.

Shaba Ranks is a star. I think it's fair to call him a superstar. When does the word superstar apply?

I removed the word "hits" from descriptions of Dexta's most popular songs. I assimed that was one of your objections. Another editor actually reverted me. I added a source. I did my best to fix it up. If you dont think the article is written properly by all means help me fix it. Are you knowledgeable about reggae? Dancehall? You seem to agree the subjwct is notable, so editing would have been the proper solution. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles must be neutral. We wouldn't state as a fact, in Wikipedia's voice, that someone is a "superstar". If reliable references have called them that, we can state that they were called that, with proper attribution. Breathless adjectives presented as fact in Wikipedia's voice are puff and promotion. Also, I said the artist might be notable. If they are, you should have no difficulty getting your draft approved, but you will need to stick to neutral language, meaning dry facts verified by reliable sources. What I know or don't know about is irrelevant; I know about Wikipedia's policies and requirements. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Phrasing and style are often matters of personal preference. The word superstar is defined as "a high-profile and extremely successful performer or athlete." If you preferred referring to Shabba Ranks and the other performers as stars instead of superstars that would have been fine with me. The word superstar differentiates the most successful from the very succesful. Wikipedia's article on Shabba notes in the opening paragraph that he is "one of the most popular dancehall artists of his generation". Dexta Daps is a star or young star while Shabba Ranks the other mentioned are well established stars.

If you don't want to restore the article and take it to a proper AfD I will pursue a drv as you suggested. It makes me laugh how much time is spent arguing over articles when it would be much easier to simply make the desired changes. I wrote it based on the sources and as I thought appropriate. I tried to make changes according to your speedy deletion of it without you pointong out or noting any specific issues. I'm not perfect and I wasn't able to divine what issues you objected to. He's clearly a successful and accomplished young performer. He's been covered substantially in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

If you're willing to remove the promotional material, I'll be happy to re-userfy it. It can't be restored as is though. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

None of the suggestions you've made are objectionable to me so I'd be more than happy to make them. Is there a way of indicating that he has sex appeal and makes erotic and sexual music videos that, along with his appearance and physique, have brought him a female following? I noticed he's mentioned in an article ona type of erotic style dancing daggering. I deemed it signifanct to note the type of performance he gives and nature of his appeal to many. It's noted in some of the soirces and interviews of seen. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I've moved to User:FloridaArmy/Dexta Daps. What we'd want to do there is generally attribution, for example, noting that "X referred to video Y as sexy and erotic" rather than stating it as bare fact. If someone's actually checked out the gender breakdown of his fans, present it as a fact that way, such that "65% of the artist's fans were found to be female by (source)." Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I added a source that refers to him as being "wildly popular with the ladies" and another for how his "raunchy" short film introducing his latest album made waves. Other sources make similar characterizations and these aspects are self evident to anyone watching the video and seeing who he appeals to in performances. I think I made the other changes you asked for. Please have a look and let me know if I'm cleared to reintroduce it to mainspace. Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
It's free of promotion now, so I've got no objection there. Thanks for doing that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).

Administrator changes

added Joe Roe
readded JzG
removed Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

OBB Pictures

Hi Seraphimblade,

I'm reaching out regarding OBB Pictures. The page was taken down as it has been deemed unambiguous advertising or promotion.

My question for you is which parts of the page are considered promotion? Can those parts be edited out so as not to be viewed as self-serving. Once that is has been completed can the OBB Pictures page be restored?

Going forward I understand Wikipedia wants to steer away from anything being blatantly promotional and make sure not to violate Wikimedia's Foundations Terms of Use.

My concern going forward is how can the OBB Pictures page go back up, what needs to be done to ensure this and what must be avoided as to not have this happen again?

Please let me know and I look forward to hearing back.

Ethansra — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethansra (talk • contribs) 22:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ethansra: This has every hallmark of undisclosed paid editing. Paid editors, including those editing as a duty of employment, are required to make certain disclosures before editing about or discussing any subject for which they're being paid. Please take care of that before we continue. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding paid editors including those editing as a duty of employment, can you please further clarify how to take care of that before continuing. What exactly do I have to do on my end? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethansra (talk • contribs) 01:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I already linked to the policy at WP:PAID. Since the requirements are already explained there, I don't see a need to repeat them here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 25

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 25, October – November 2017

  • OAWiki & #1Lib1Ref
  • User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Spotlight: Research libraries and Wikimedia
  • Bytes in brief

Arabic, Korean and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Surya Mohan Kulshreshtha

Hi Seraphimblade,

This is regarding the page "Surya Mohan Kulshreshtha" than you deleted in Oct 2015 citing promotional material. Can you please help me with specific examples that you believe should either be evidenced or removed to be able to restore the page. Theater personality "Surya Mohan Kulshreshtha" is an eminent director of national (Indian) and International reputation and is also the recipient of the highest honor given to a practicing artist by the president of India (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sangeet_Natak_Akademi_Award). I have written the page in a biographical format and have referenced pages of his peers for the writing style (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raj_Bisaria, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._V._Karanth, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usha_Ganguly, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratan_Thiyam).

I respect your editorial decision and would want to make the amendments needed to restore this important page on an important personality. Will await your response.

Best Regards, Tuhin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuhin k (talk • contribs) 09:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Tuhin k: Well, I can see why those others misled you if you looked at them. They're full of garbage too, and will need either severe trimming or deletion as well. So far as the specific one in question, it was full of fluff and boosterism. "...eminent theatre director..." ("eminent" is unnecessary fluff), "But, the life force in all his works has been his own unique style – A Minimal Theatre in which content and the actors are most important.", "His works reflect a deep concern towards the society and have always been relevant for the contemporary times. Recurring themes in his work are anti-communalism, anti-war, women empowerment, search for truth, existentialism and psychological exploration of human emotions and relations.", " Along with being a pioneer in the field of theatre, he has also been actively involved in cultural and social activism.", "For his illustrious contributions to the field of theatre, he has been honoured with prominent awards." (unreferenced, unneeded talking up). And that's before we even get out of the lead section. Articles must be written in a strictly neutral tone, and must not "talk up" their subject. They must also stick only to facts verified by reliable sources. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I understood the central point of staying neutral unless I am citing a source. Let me rewrite the page and re-publish it.Tuhin k (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Tuhin k: So, a couple things. First, as is my standard recommendation, new editors should create an article as a draft and have it reviewed by articles for creation. Drafts can be fixed if rejected, while inappropriate mainspace articles may be deleted instead. Also, it is not that articles must remain neutral "unless (you are) citing a source", articles must always be neutrally written without exception. Even if the source prevents it in a non-neutral manner, we need to paraphrase it into neutral language. Matters of opinion should be attributed to whoever said it, not presented as fact. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

"Inclusionist"?

Please direct me to the editor and/or discussion you referenced on your user page that almost convinced you to stop being a "deletionist". I would be very interested in seeing these arguments. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 18:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Huggums537: I wrote that over a decade ago now, so I'm afraid I wouldn't remember where exactly to find it. There might be some pointers to it in my old talk archives, if you'd care to dig through them, but I'm afraid I don't recall the details. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Yikes! Thanks anyways... Huggums537 (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays
Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Atomenergoexport

Wy have you returned the redirect? As we can see here it is not one company. Ilya Drakonov (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC).

Redirecting a company to its parent is common when the company is not notable. Regardless, however, we do not permit spamvertisement and "product list" articles, that go on about how it's a "key player" and failed at its projects for "political reasons" with no references to support those claims. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, I don't see the reason for taking down the article. This company was the biggest corporation for building Nuclear power plants in USSR and around the world. Ilya Drakonov (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC).
I already stated the reason, right above. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Richard Pennington (writer)

Dear Seraphimblade,

First of all Happy Holidays. Secondly, I noticed you deleted quite a bit on the page I created. After revising what you edited, I agree with some parts, would like some clarification on others. I took most of my inspiration to write it from other pages about authors, both famous and lesser-known. I will be honest, I originally put the page up as a Draft in the Articles for Creation but seeing how severely backlogged it was (over 2 months before it would even be reviewed), I grew impatient and figured it wouldn't be immediately deleted but at least edited by a newpage patroller. I apologize for not following the correct process.

Regarding the parts you deleted that I would like some more clarification on:

  • The entire list of Published Works is gone. I didn't intend to add that as a "Product List" like you stated, there's no financial gain to be made here. Simply a list of books the man wrote as an author. Should I remove the ISBN links? Only write down the more notable ones?
  • Regarding the "Advocacy"-section: I do agree that some parts were a little tendentious and probably should have been deleted by myself already but others (Jikji, Abner Haynes, LeVias) were referenced by articles in newspapers and books talking specifically about him - and they clearly do mention him. The Korea Times, Joongang Daily, Alcalde, Yonhap News Agency are all proper sources who dedicated an article (some longer than others) to his work on Jikji while the Dallas Morning News wrote an entire article on his efforts with Abner Haynes. The books listed in the references on Jerry LeVias all refer to the portrait he made of LeVias at the time in his own book. Richard Pennington wrote a great book regarding racial segregation in the South-West conference but as I thought, I shouldn't refer to his own work hence I referred to other authors talking about him and citing him. Is that not correct?

Anything else you deleted, I can live with and understand. I want to clarify as well that I am not Richard Pennington, nor am I being paid or do I have any connection to the man. Merely someone in the same field who has read his work over the years. The good and the bad ones, all the same. Nagarashi (talk) 06:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Nagarashi

@Nagarashi: What exactly are these sources that discuss him in detail? I really can't find much at all, and the ones I looked at didn't even mention his name. It's not necessary to reference bomb. If there are good references that actually and specifically discuss him in depth, use only those, not just general sources about tangentially related subjects that don't talk about him at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: I understand to not reference bomb on the same subject. There are no tangible sources that discuss him or his life in detail but the sources I gave do discuss his work. Articles like:

Dallas Morning News Article on Pennington and Haynes Korea Times Article on Pennington and Jikji There are a handful of other similar articles regarding his Jikji campaign. Again, regarding the books. He himself wrote extensively about Jerry LeVias and Racial Segregation during his time, and on top campaigned to get him into the College/NFL Hall of Fame. The books listed refer to him rather briefly: Michael Oriard on Pennington and LeVias because most of the work is written by Pennington himself. I assume this is then unusable? Also, what is the reasoning behind deleting the published works-part? The man has done a lot of writing, I can list only the more notable works and leave the smaller ones out? I don't know what would be feasible as I see lists like that posted on a lot of writers' wikipedia pages.Nagarashi (talk) 07:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Nagarashi

The Dallas piece has a couple of paragraphs about him. The Korea Times article is about him, but isn't very detailed. I'm really doubting that there's enough here to have an article about him at all, it just seems some brief mentions rather than in-depth coverage. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).

Administrator changes

added Muboshgu
readded Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned
removed None

Bureaucrat changes

readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

List of Williams College alumni

Hello! I think you might have been premature in moving List of Williams College people to List of Williams College alumni -- I am not convinced that everyone on the list is an alum, many may be faculty or staff that did not attend the school. Was there a discussion for this move that I missed?--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. "People" seems a bit awkward, but if you think it fits better, I don't care all that much about it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
"List of **** college/university people" seems to be the standard: List of Harvard University people, List of University of Southern California people, etc. Although Category:Lists of people by university or college in the United States does include both "people" and "alumni". I'm in no rush to change back... just looking to do what's best.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

23:00:57, 8 January 2018 review of submission by Adarrah


I have made the revisions as requested and I would like to know if this has your approval.

Helen Schreider has submitted a Declaration of Consent that she is the copyright holder of all the photos in the article. A response isn’t expected for about 6 months.

@Adarrah: The article hasn't been resubmitted. If it were, though, I'd still decline it. The article is still full of fluffy language and reads a lot more like a fan piece than an encyclopedia article, that still needs toned way down. Also, too much of it is cited to what they wrote, rather than what independent sources wrote about them. Stick primarily to facts presented by third party sources, and try to avoid the purple prose. Also, too much detail. The article should summarize their trip, not be a blow by blow. And if something was mentioned in a book, just cite the book as a reference, it's not necessary for the article to note it in the prose. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Edits of Williams College page

You're clearly an experienced Wikipedia editor, so I hope you can explain the discrepancy between soapboxing and providing additional information. Look at the Dartmouth College page and compare that to the previous edition of the Williams College page. There is significant material which you consider "fluff" on the Williams page, but you feel no need to remove it from Dartmouth's page. Why is that? GreylockFoW (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: further, if you look at any major university's page (Princeton, Harvard, Dartmouth, etc.), the headers contain summary information about the college's course offerings as well a summary of the accomplishments of alumni. I get that you're a deletionist, but these deletions are highly inconsistent among college pages. GreylockFoW (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@GreylockFoW: If spam exists on other articles, feel free to remove it there too. Phrasing like "Following a liberal arts curriculum, Williams College provides undergraduate instruction in 25 academic departments and interdisciplinary programs including 36 majors in the humanities, arts, social sciences, and natural sciences. Williams College offers unique academic experiences including a January academic term, two-person tutorials modeled off of Oxbridge courses, and concentrations in specialized subfields of traditional academic departments." is fluffy, promotional, unacceptable language. Do not reinsert it again, or it will be treated as spamming. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay. So is the issue the way it's phrased or the information that it contains? Further, the information about alumni follows a very specific template that other pages use, and it's not really spam (I didn't even include that section either). GreylockFoW (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

It's a bit of both. A long laundry list of "Look how great our alumni have done!", as well as the promotional tone I gave an example of earlier. Articles are meant to summarize a topic, not be a brochure on why one should attend a college. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Gotcha. I understand where you're coming from, and I'll be more mindful of this moving forward. I am inclined to rewrite portions of it (with tone, content rewritten to avoid soapboxing / promotional material, and your blessing, of course) because, as I've implied, I am not trying to soapbox on the Williams page, but rather, provide an analogous summary of information that exists on other similar college pages (I point to Dartmouth College, Princeton University, Harvard University as examples but there are many others). Most universities' pages seem to summarize alumni achievements in the top portion. Most universities' pages discuss the curriculum in the top portion. With these two aspects in mind as a precedent, including this information seems appropriate. However, if you think that this is a problem across all university / college pages that contain this type of information, then that's an entirely different discussion. GreylockFoW (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Reason for discussion

Hi Seraphimblade. I noticed you removed this claim though whoever added it had given a citation. You stated that such a claim "will need discussion." Could you go into more detail about why such a claim needs discussion, and what would it take for a claim like that to be included on Wikipedia? Kindly ping me in your reply. Full disclosure: I'm asking because I've come across similar claims. They seem a bit fishy to me but there's a citation so I want guidance on how to deal with this. –Human10.0 (talk) 09:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Human 10.0: The claim didn't match the sources, and its tone was argumentative rather than neutral. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Octopus69 sandbox page/Rob Carli article.

Hi Seraphimblade,

Thanks for the feedback. I'm sort of surprised that you don't feel the tone is neutral. But should I build it up with more independent sources and then ask you to take another look?

Thanks,

Octopus69 (Nick)Octopus69 (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Regarding getting 10 edits under your belt, is this a normal prerequisite for posting a Wikipedia article. And is there a section where you can find articles to edit specifically? Otherwise it seems you're going on a lengthy wild goose chase.

Wouldn't be necessarily me who reviews it, but someone can take a look at it for you. I don't know what you mean by the rest of what you said. If getting ten edits (which is the absolute technical minimum, I wouldn't even recommend it at that point in most cases), is too much effort, you and Wikipedia might not be a good fit. Writing good articles, or figuring out if a given subject would make an appropriate topic, takes effort and research. I think I probably had made hundreds of edits by the time I felt confident in doing that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Tierra Yerma

Hi Seraphimblade, I hope I am posting this message correctly. In any case, in regards to the entry for Tierra Yerma, which was flagged for "speedy deletion", I was in the process of citing external and internal sources to make the entry more encyclopedic when it was actually deleted. I had asked the Writer/Director of the film in question to add source material of critical reviews and cultural context, and was busy adding citations myself. I am reposting the entry and hope that this version meets your standards. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmc1973 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cmc1973: "Asked the writer/director"? It sounds to me like what's going on here is that you've been paid or employed to edit the article. If that's true, it is required that you disclose that before making any further edits on the subject. That would also indicate it would be inappropriate for you to put the article directly into the encyclopedia; it would need to be reviewed as outlined for editors with conflict of interest. If you should place any further promotional material into the encyclopedia, you will be blocked from editing. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I just posted it again, before I read this response. I am not being paid to do this, not sure why you would assume that. In actuality, I worked on the film as script consultant (you can see my credit here, I am Claudia M Clemente: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3414957/. I wasn't aware that posting an entry for a film of international significance, that uses artists from at least three countries, and that has been screened in festivals around the world, is somehow illegal as per wikipedia guidelines! There are plenty of entries about films, on wikipedia. Forgive me for not understanding, but I do not believe there is any foul play here. If you look at the new version, there are plenty of citations, and other contextual information added. Thank you for bearing with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmc1973 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid the primary issues remain, and you do still sound like you have a conflict of interest in this case. Since the page has been repeatedly recreated, I've blocked it from any further creations. Please write any proposed article as a draft and have it reviewed by articles for creation. If AfC approves it, I'll happily unprotect the page to allow the move. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, apologies for not understanding the conflicts; I thought my credit on the film was too small to be of any relevance (I was unpaid for that too!) and honestly believe that the cultural significance of the project merited an entry. I'll submit it to the articles for creation people and see if they agree. Thanks and regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmc1973 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

edit war

Willing to help with those that might be confused on policies and practices, are having issues with expressing their opinions clearly, or may need dispute resolution but need some help on how to go about it. Contact on my talk page is preferred, wiki e-mail is also an option. Currently accepting new requests. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

this was 2007 are you still doing this.50.254.21.213 (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

If you'd like to ask me for advice, I'm happy to provide it, but I would need to know what the trouble is. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
It is about this. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 02:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "confused on policies and practices" "having issues with expressing their opinions clearly"
  • i am now being harassed by multiple users.
  • i will not waste your time if people are going to talk page stalk. 50.254.21.213 (talk)
It seems you are indeed a bit confused. Talk pages are open to the public, you don't get to exclude others from commenting on a thread just because you opened it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

50.254.21.213 (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

    • I agree with their assessments. You are forum shopping and admin shopping. You've been told repeatedly to knock it off and drop it. You've gotten a clear answer. May not have been exactly the one you wanted, but it's not going to change if you keep asking the question, and at some point, refusing to drop it becomes actionably disruptive. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "Willing to help with those that might be confused on policies and practices"
  • So would you address https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules "occasional exceptions may apply" but rules do not come out and "say" "cite" and it is the interptation of users who refuse to address my examples.this is a biography of non living notable people, not a promotion of a living person or co. 50.254.21.213 (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I have helped in the way I agreed to, by giving advice. I agree with the other editors in this instance. That doesn't mean "keep pushing it" (whether at me or at the issue), it means drop it.
  • ok then where do i go to get the rules interpited, that is why is it right on someone elses page and not mine.

50.254.21.213 (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Emtee

Hello. There's this page Emtee (rapper) with an unnecessary disambiguation which needs to be moved to the vacant base name Emtee but it was create-protected by you 7 years ago. Could you unprotect it? — Zawl 13:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I've removed the protection and moved it there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)♧

Contested deletion

Dear Seraphimblade, thank you for reviewing my sandbox.

Since this is the first time I am creating a page in Wikipedia, I do not have much information about the guidelines. I looked thru the steps that need to be read before the creation of a new page, but as a human being, I did not understand all, at once. Yesterday, I did not have enough time to finish the page as it was quite late in my place. Please, give some time to finish the page. It is not a wise decision to delete, as it is not finished yet. Please, do not judge too quickly, my page is not for promotion, but for information only.

I hope you will understand my situation. Give me some time to finish the page. And, please return my page.

Thank you, mates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcsohib (talk • contribs) 05:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mcsohib: As what you wrote was highly promotional, please first clarify whether you are being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia, including being asked or expected to do so as part of employment. If so, you will need to disclose that fact before editing or discussing the subject further as outlined here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


Miller Mobley

Hi, Seraphimblade. Yesterday, you deleted the page Miller Mobley. I had included so much documentation to prove notability, and I thought I had written it in a neutral tone. Plus, I looked at other photographers' pages as a guide (Norman Jean Roy's, for example, includes this somewhat subjective sentence: "Roy was born outside of Montreal, Canada, where he spent his formative years speaking French, playing hockey and doing all things quintessentially Canadian.") In other words, I thought I had properly abided by the guidelines.

Miller Mobley is a genuinely notable person within the world of commercial photography and arguably of interest to those outside that industry because he photographs celebrities. Can you counsel me on how I can revise my entry so that it can be approved? I'm not looking to promote Miller. But I have worked in the photo industry and do know that he's important and is headed for even more success.

Thanks so much, Seraphimblade. KristinaFeliciano (talk) 13:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)Kristina

@KristinaFeliciano: Since the article was promotional, please clarify if you are being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia, including being asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment. If so, it is necessary that you disclose that fact as outlined here before discussing or editing further about the subject. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your swift response, @Seraphimblade. I'm not clear on how the article was promotional, though. It didn't include anything praising his work or him. It was just an article about a notable contemporary photographer, with documentation (links to interviews) that I had hoped proved his notability. In retrospect, was it wrong for me to include those interviews? Please help me understand, as I'm not seeing how his entry was different from those of Craig McDean, Dan Winters, Norman Jean Roy, or Mark Seliger, to name just four examples. I really want to abide by the guidelines and would be more than happy to revise the text so that its passes muster. KristinaFeliciano (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)Kristina

Before proceeding further, please directly address the above question. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The answer to your question is that I'm not Miller Mobley's employee, but I did write the entry for him for a small fee. I'm happy to be up front about that. I would be very surprised if the pages for the other photographers I mentioned above weren't also written by someone either paid to do so or asked to do so as part of an internship. I say that not as a form of justification but as a recognition of reality. Doing the research it takes to create a Wikipedia entry, and writing it to conform to guidelines, and adding the necessary citations, is a skill unto itself. His notability is not in question; my role in writing the page is in question—if I'm understanding you correctly. So please do advise on next steps. An oversight or mistake on my part should not be reason enough to keep legitimate information about him off of Wikipedia. By legitimate information, I mean his name, that he's an American photographer who shoots portraits primarily of celebrities, and some of the many places that people have seen his images (The Hollywood Reporter), etc. Basically, the same sort of information that has been approved for Norman Jean Roy and the others. With thanks, KristinaFeliciano (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)Kristina

That wasn't "approved" (and the other articles were kind of junk, so I wouldn't use them as a model for, well, anything). Other stuff exists is not a valid rationale for anything; if other stuff is there that shouldn't be, that means we should clean it up too, not have more of it. If they were indeed products of undisclosed paid editing, they're not permitted. Our terms of use require disclosure when someone is editing for payment, and saying so here isn't enough, it would need to be done in one of the ways described in the paid editing guidelines I linked above. So, your next step would be to make that disclosure. Following that, since you have a conflict of interest, if you wanted to have another go at creating an article, you would need to create it as a draft and have it approved by articles for creation. To determine if an article about him is appropriate, you'll need to determine if there's enough source material that's reliable and independent (those links go into more detail about what that entails) and cover him in reasonable depth, not just a mention or name drop. Interviews aren't independent, as they're essentially written by the subject. If a decent quantity of such source material about this individual doesn't exist, an article about them isn't appropriate. If it does, create a draft (e.g., at Draft:Miller Mobley), making sure the article is neutral in both tone and content, and does not "talk up" the subject in any way and sticks only to what the sources verify. It also should not have external links in the article text. Creating an appropriate new article is one of the more challenging things we do, so it likely will have something of a learning curve. It's a challenge even for experienced editors, but at least the draft process will let you get feedback and go based from that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

David Kissinger

Good morning Seraphimblade. You just deleted my page, David Kissinger, and put several warnings on my account. I had put a lot of work into the page and included multiple references from news outlets and government records. Am I incorrect that the quality of these references would meet the indication of important criteria required for A7? As it relates to G11, I did put considerable effort into providing the content in a neutral point of view. Is it the simple COI issue that resulted in its removal or was the page structure and content at issue as well? Now that I am thinking more about it would it be possible to have my work product moved to a draft area (this Sandbox maybe?) for me to work on and improve? This seems reasonable since I am permitted to place a short biography of myself on my user page. Thanks for your consideration. Davidkissinger

@Davidkissinger: COI in itself doesn't render a page promotional or eligible to deletion under G11. But in my experience, COI often renders it near impossible for someone to see their own POV editing. Ih the case of the article in question, there were some standard problems like "...Councilman Kissinger..." (a person is referred to by their full name on first mention, and only last name on subsequent mentions, no titles)", but that's not the worst of it. Everything after "Kissinger is known for his leadership and addressing citizens concerns promptly and effectively, as evidenced by the following...", that's promotional in itself, but it has material after it like "When Toledo Edison wanted a subsidy that unfairly impacted Maumee, as well as all of northwest Ohio, Councilman Kissinger said "No"..." Aside from the utterly POV "said no" (properly would be "opposed the proposed regulation") entirely neutral, we'd never editorialize that a proposed regulation was "unfair". Similarly, "Responding to Citizens concerns related to cell towers placed in the public right-of-way, Councilman Kissinger spoke out against the unsafe towers and forced cell tower companies to relocate obstructive equipment." We wouldn't editorialize that it was "unsafe". "Acting on concerns expressed by Maumee uptown businesses, Councilman Kissinger spoke out against unnecessary legislation sought by Mayor Carr." We'd never editorialize that such legislation was "unnecessary". You may not place campaign brochures anywhere on Wikipedia. You may mention your occupation on your user page, but you may not place campaigning material there or anywhere else on Wikipedia. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

About my requesting the recovery of deleted article – Draft:SPIROL International Corporation

@W49dakota: That article is completely unsalvageable and completely inappropriate. I can't imagine anyone would restore it (and if they did, it would be subject to immediate deletion again as still being promotional). If you want to try again, start from scratch and tone the promotion way down. Wikipedia is not for an exhaustive list of products, certifications, locations, etc. Oh, and Don't Capitalize Random Words, either, there was a lot of inappropriate capitalization in that one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Serphimblade,

I hope I am responding in the proper place. Thanks for your words of advice. I've got much to learn regarding creating a factual, non-promotional article on Wikipedia. Keep it simple. Factual. Don't make it an exhaustive list of the very things you mentioned. Regards, W49dakota (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 26

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 26, December – January 2018

  • #1Lib1Ref
  • User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Spotlight: What can we glean from OCLC’s experience with library staff learning Wikipedia?
  • Bytes in brief

Arabic and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
  • Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

  • A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 February 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Davidkissinger

Good morning @Seraphimblade!

I addition to my Page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davidkissinger it appears that you also removed my User:Davidkissinger Would you please restore this page? Thanks! @Davidkissinger

  • (talk page stalker) User:Davidkissinger, please stop nagging this admin. Please read, or re-read, the clear and explicit answer Seraphimblade has already given you above, with special attention to what he said about your userpage: "You may not place campaign brochures anywhere on Wikipedia. You may mention your occupation on your user page, but you may not place campaigning material there or anywhere else on Wikipedia". Your userpage was as much promotion as the deleted autobiography, indeed it seems to have been pretty much the same text, with phrasing like "Kissinger is known for his leadership and addressing citizens concerns promptly and effectively", etc etc. Please don't ask any more questions that have already been answered, and please stop trying to use Wikipedia to advertise yourself. Bishonen | talk 17:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC).

@Bishonen I believe you may be misunderstanding my inquiry. I understand the expectations stated by @Seraphimblade and will comply. However, my userpage is locked and I am not able to edit it at this point. I am requesting a release of my userpage so that I am able to edit it within the requirements specified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidkissinger (talk • contribs) 17:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I just checked, and your user page is not protected. You should be able to edit it normally. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Rashad Nabiyev

Dear friend. Yesterday, I created the page Rashad Nabiyev and since I had little time and could not add many sources. At night, I got the message that the page is going to be deleted because it seems as a promotion and there are few sources. I edited the source, added many reliable sources (from foreign websites), made changes on article and contested deletion. In the message I explained everything clearly (I think). Rashad Nabiyev is a governmental official, Chairman and CEO of Azercosmos - national satellite operator of the Republic of Azerbaijan. There is no need to promote him. I just wanted to create his page since the CEO of Arianespace Stéphane Israël , CEO of Boeing Dennis Muilenburg and others have their wiki pages as well. I do rely on your understanding and ask you to return my page. Thank You very much for your time. ZahraGasim (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@ZahraGasim: It's a fortunate thing I noticed your message, since you posted it at the top of the page where older discussions go. That's why I have a notice at the top of this talk page explicitly saying new discussions should be posted to the bottom. That aside, you have been engaged in promotional editing at Azercosmos and at the article you mention here, so first please clarify whether you are being paid or compensated for editing Wikipedia, including being asked or expected to make such edits as a duty of employment. If so, you are required to disclose that fact as outlined here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Community redirects

You recently turned the Community episode articles Physical Education (Community) and Pascal's Triangle Revisited into redirects. Could you please explain, how did you determine that these two articles do not meet the notability criteria? -- Radiphus 15:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Radiphus: I am not able to locate for them any substantial reference material about the episodes. Note that does not just mean routine blurb listings or plot summaries, but substantial analysis and critical commentary of the specific episode. Also, I noted that you are using nonfree content in individual episode articles, which is also generally not permitted. Individual episodes being notable is an exceptional circumstance, not the norm, and these do not appear to be exceptions. Normally, episodes should be briefly summarized on a page about the season. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
MOS:TVIMAGE states that a promotional poster or image, an episode-specific title card or home media cover, or a screenshot of a significant moment or element from the episode may be used as an infobox image. All of the above are by definition non-free content. This is the first time i hear that this is not permitted. Most episode articles on wikipedia are using a screenshot of the episode as the primary means of identification. Where is it said that this is not permitted? Also, where is it said that episodes should only be summarized on a page about the season? Could you please explain, what do you mean by Individual episodes being notable is an exceptional circumstance? Keep in mind that notability does not depend on fame, importance, or popularity per WP:NN. The fact that the "reception" sections need to be rewritten and expanded doesn't mean that the episodes haven't gained sufficiently significant attention. I believe it would be better if you had added maintenance templates to the articles, instead of turning them into redirects. -- Radiphus 03:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
WP:EPISODE explains further, and WP:NFCC about nonfree material (see especially #1 and #8). This was settled long, long ago, and both the discussion and cleanup took a great deal of time and trouble, so I've got no interest in rehashing it. Detailed in-universe material goes to Wikia, and it doesn't get maintenance templated, it gets removed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
In fact, it looks like there's already a Wikia set up for this series, if it's something you're interested in doing a lot of that type of work on. [8] Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
No, i am not interested in wikia. This is why i am here. I have used WP guidelines to support my arguements and i think this reference is disrespectful. I could agree at some level that the articles might not be notable enough, but i can not understand why you think that non-free content is not permitted in episode articles. As i explained before, all of the recommended options by TVIMAGE are non-free, so WP:NFCC #1 is met, and the screenshots also help identify the episodes, as explained in the licensing template {{Non-free television screenshot}}, so they meet WP:NFCC #8 as well. In any case, i am not the one to change your mind. Consensus on this issue has been determined and there is no point in this discussion just between us. -- Radiphus 04:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
You're certainly right on that. Like I said, it was determined long ago. Ensure not to do it again. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
What am i right on and what should i not do again? I expect an administrator to pay attention to the site's policies and guidelines. -- Radiphus 04:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
You are right that the issue is long-settled. We don't generally do individual episode articles, unless the episode meets high standards to notability, and we don't use nonfree material even when they do. That's true even for highly notable episodes, like Star Trek's The Inner Light (note a free image was found instead, but no screenshots), or the first episode of TNG (again, note the pains taken to use free images rather than any nonfree), or one of the most notable DS9 episodes, In The Pale Moonlight. No nonfree. The exception is if a specific graphical element or visual element of a scene actually is extensively covered in reliable sources, and text alone would be insufficient to explain that, but that's again the exception, not the rule. It is not permitted for "identification". I have paid attention to the policies and guidelines over a decade now, which is why I know very well what they actually are, and which is why I won't fall for your lawyering, nor engage it farther. Don't do it again. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
This is the second time you've told me "don't do it again". Are you trying to assert your dominance over me or provoke a reaction? You are an administrator and you are expected to support your arguements with the site's policies and guidelines. Saying that other stuff exists and that you 've spent more time on Wikipedia is not what i had hoped for when i reached out to you. Regarding the infobox images, if you think that screenshots can not be used for identification, then you should have the licensing template deleted, instead of being disrespectful towards a user who is following the site's guidlines. Have a nice day. -- Radiphus 08:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for help with the Teradata article

Hello, Seraphimblade. I recently began submitting a series of requests to improve the Teradata article on behalf of my employer. My initial requests were well received, but responses to the later ones (all answered by the same editor) have been frustrating and confusing. I've struggled to get the reviewing editor to reconsider my proposed improvements or offer further feedback, even when I've suggested alternatives. I am specifically referring to this request to update the "Technology and products" section, and this request to create an "Acquisitions and divestitures" subsection within the "History" section.

For the first, I've provided alternative sourcing and wording for consideration, but the editor declined to reply. For the second, I proposed no major content changes, and instead of actually implementing my request (which they said they did), the editor changed the entire history section into bullet points. I'm afraid the article looks worse than before. I replied to the editor, asking for the bullet point to be converted into prose, but I did not receive any reply.

I then reached out to User:Linearizable for help, as a member of WikiProjects Databases, but they are hesitant to become involved after a discussion with the editor who reviewed the request. Linearizable suggested I reach out to you, as an active WikiProject Databases member, for additional feedback on these edit requests. If you are willing, you might consider looking at the pre-bullet point version of the article, for context.

If you are not interested, do you have any suggestions for where I can go for additional help? I am trying to improve the Wikipedia article, but feel stuck when my replies are not being answered. Thanks for advance for any assistance or feedback. Dodds_Writer (Talk · Disclosure: Employee of Teradata) 18:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dodds Writer: Well, first off, appreciate you being open about what you're doing and why. It's been some years since I used a Teradata myself, but it was an impressive machine, especially the way it handled parallelism. I have to wonder if it still gives the same rather funny "is predicted with no confidence to be..." message. That aside, there's a bit to go through there, and I don't have time tonight, but I probably will shortly. I'll see what can be figured there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

AE

Hi. Please don't post in the section restricted to uninvolved administrators. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 07:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I think I'd like a little more explanation for that, please? Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

::This Post.[9] Doug Weller talk 07:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

If you're going to continue being vague, I'm just going to end this conversation. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

::::I thought I was being perfectly clear. You posted in a section that says "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators." I said that in my first post and then, because thought you might not know what edit I meant, linked it. You know, if you just assumed I knew what I was talking about (in wikispeak age) I think you would have understood me. Doug Weller talk 21:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

And normally, we would add a "Because..." after making such a request (or in this case, rather a demand). Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Why are you two doing this the cryptic way? Since Seraphimblade is an admin, I assume Doug is claiming that Seraphimblade is involved in this issue. I have no idea if that's true or not, but you guys should just address that head on. It'll go faster... --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, I presume the same thing, since I figure Doug is aware I'm an administrator. But I have no idea why he thinks I'm involved, and have received no clarification as to that. To the best of my recollection, I've never been in any way involved with RAN and creating articles. I didn't even know he was doing it again until I saw the AE request. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
If the idea that you're involved is truly out of left field, then yeah, it's Doug's move. Surely he hasn't confused you with non-admin User:Seraphim System (I hesitate to admit I've done that before...) --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I suppose that's possible, it wouldn't be the first time. Doug Weller, any clarification? Because I honestly have zero idea why you made the above request, let alone in the tone that you did. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh shit. I can't believe I've been so stupid. And you an ex-Arb to, a status I'm beginning to yearn for. @Floquenbeam: is absolutely correct. I feel like digging a hole and pulling the dirt in over me. Many, many apologies. I won't do that again! I haven't noticed you around for a while as we don't seem to cross paths much, but that's not really a very good excuse. Doug Weller talk 07:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
You had me quite confused! I hadn't considered the possibility you might've mistaken me for someone else, until Floq brought it up. I thought you figured me for involved somehow, and was really at a loss as to why that would be. And yeah, it's definitely a change being an ex-Arb, but certainly not an altogether bad one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I just found the userinfo script (mentioned at Drmies' talk page), so now when I look at the top of your user page I see you have edited for 12 years 11 months, are an Admin with edit filter rights also, etc. Plus another script that when I look at the history of a page highlights all the Admins in cyan. Nice addition to the script that shows all blocked editors struck out. Doug Weller talk 20:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
That's kind of cool. I use popups for that myself, but the immediate visual identification (especially for blocked users) would be kind of nice. Might have to take those for a spin. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West of Scotland Pattern Novices' Chase

Enough is enough. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Good evening. I'm curious as to why the above article was deleted. This was the last post made on the page's discussion;-

I would be interested in clarification on what makes for a notable race. Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Horse_racing it states that there is notability in winning graded races and https://www.racingpost.com/results/3/Ayr/1993-01-30/49920 demonstrates that the race was a Grade 2 contest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Horse_racing/Notability goes into a little more detail but it is very much set around American racing rather than European (where individual races are more a measure of quality and importance than "meets" - which isn't even a term used here) and is too ambiguous for the purposes of this article (even though there's nothing to even remotely suggest that this one ought to be deleted). Furthermore, I am greatly concerned that if this page gets deleted, a great number here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_National_Hunt_races may suffer similar fates for incredibly vague and ill-informed reasons. As such, I think it is in the interests of all concerned parties that the notability standards of this subject matter be scrutinized and the ambiguity removed - preferably by somebody with a legitimate familiarity with the field

You have left nothing which satisfies the aforementioned queries. Kotkijet (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Our standard for notability is here. That applies to every article. The discussion made clear that this one didn't pass it. Others may or may not, that's evaluated case by case. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I started off there and worked my way down to find that the standard for notability on this particular subject is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Horse_racing which applies to articles pertaining to horse racing. The discussion did not make it clear as this standard is clearly vague and warrants being cleared up by somebody with a familiarity with the second most popular sport in the UK by attendance - https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2014/dec/14/horse-racing-attendancesKotkijet (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Wikiproject essays are not policies. Articles must pass the actual notability guideline. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The "actual" notability guideline states that the article "meets...the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". The box on the right contains https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(sports) which states "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline ***OR*** the sport specific criteria set forth below." The sport specific criteria brings me back to the very page you're dismissing as a "Wikiproject essay".Kotkijet (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion made it clear that sourcing was inadequate. That is the answer and will remain the answer. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I would thank you for addressing my direct rebuttal of your previous argument but you have completely ignored it. With regards to sources, taking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ashes_series as an example. What makes wisdens almanac and ESPNcricinfo appropriate sources but their direct equivalents in Timeform and racingpost inappropriate?Kotkijet (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
You've already gotten your answer. I'm not going to go evaluate a hundred other things, because they are irrelevant to the discussion in question. That particular discussion found sourcing to be inadequate for that particular subject. That's it. I am not going to repeat it again. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
If I already had an adequate answer then I wouldn't be persisting in seeking same. "That particular discussion" did not even attempt to address what made Timeform and racingpost inappropriate sources. Again, referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ashes_series, this page made it as a *featured list* - a standard of wikipedia excellence - even though the sources are genuinely no more reliable than the sources I used for my article. Please do not take this personally but I feel you (and those who flagged the article for deletion) were completely overzealous in acting within an area completely alien to your expertise. Since you are unable/unwilling to justify your actions beyond blunt and reductivist dismissals then perhaps you could direct me to somebody more qualified. Kotkijet (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Seraphimblade/archive_15&oldid=1142551047"