Jump to content

User talk:SoWhy/Archive 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33

Traditions and progression

Hello there, I need your help with something. Recently, whenever I find someone doing disruptive editing, I go to warn them. A number of admins come to me and tell me I cannot give advice to so-called "veterans". Where does it say I cannot do that? It is clearly unfair and against Wikipedia's fundamental policies. I have been indefinitely blocked without any warnings once and had a hard time fighting for recovery. However, I see several "veterans" overprotected by admins, perhaps because they are "close friends". Wikipedia is suppose to promote diversity. I absolutely don't see that. Whenever there are contentious discussions, this "veterans" get the upper hand and support from the admins.

I am not trying to say all admins are like this, some are really kind and civil. I am trying to keep myself away from these people as much as possible. I want to create a positive environment and earn support and respect from peers in this community. This site has so much potential and should be turned away from the wrong hands. Any advice you would like to give? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

(talkpage stalker) Yes some admins act stupid/inappropriately/protectionist but you are not showing good judgement in calling out poor behavior. You need a lot more experience before diving into behavior management and policy areas. If you continue I expect you will be sanctioned at ANi. Legacypac (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
That's literally what I asked, where does it say that? If so, you don't have to tell me what I should do. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm trying to give you friendly advice based on over 10 years and 140,000 edits here. Maybe read WP:CIR? I don't know how else to explain things but your clueless brushing me off is not going to play well when you come up for sanctions at ANi. Legacypac (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I am not brushing out anything. And most people are uncivil here anyways. It's my choice whether to listen to you or not. I asked the author of this page instead. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Listen to the comments here [1] whicn are pretty direct. The TBAN will follow if you continue this course of action. Legacypac (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I think Legacypac has said most of it already. Like everywhere in life, people who have a track record of making positive contributions earn more good faith than others and this will of course lead to the assumption that their future actions are equally positive. And often that is the case. Making that assumption is not the same as protectionism though. Judging from your talk page and the related discussions, there seems to be a legitimate concern that you were the one editing disruptively. You want my advice? Listen to Legacypac and keep away from those areas and focus on content work. You can do a lot of good there without having to fight with other users. Regards SoWhy 08:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Sterfab

Hi Not sure why the page is deleted. Here is the reason why it shouldn't-


Sterifab is a well-established product that is used in households, businesses, hospitals, nursing homes and countless other facilities around the country. It has been quoted in dozens of articles in significant publications including: https://www.popularmechanics.com/home/interior-projects/a24743152/get-rid-of-bedbugs/
https://www.masstransitmag.com/safety-security/article/12399349/the-travel-bug
https://www.pctonline.com/article/one-two-punch/
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=sterifab&ref=nb_sb_noss_2
Like Kleenex, Windex or Woolite, it has long existed in America and is part of the fabric of our daily lives. If you have bed bugs (which is unfortunate) you use Sterifab.


contest this deletion

Thanks Ilan — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Ilanshriki (talk • contribs) 04:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ilanshriki: What you need to provide are reliable sources that are independent of the subject and cover the subject in detail. Minor mentions or recycled press releases are not enough. Judging from doing a short Google search, it's unlikely that these exist but I'm happy to be proven wrong. If (and only if) you can provide me with such sources, I'll undelete the article. Regards SoWhy 08:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @SoWhy: Cool.Will work on it

Books & Bytes, Issue 32

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 32, January – February 2019

  • #1Lib1Ref
  • New and expanded partners
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to User surevey 1

Hello! There is an ongoing survey going on at User:ImmortalWizard/User survey 1. As a fellow Wikipedian ImmortalWizard would like you to answer some questions. It wouldn't take too long, and your participation will be appreciated. Thanks, THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Dungeon Siege III

On 27 February 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dungeon Siege III, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that role-playing video game Dungeon Siege III has so many items with unexplained statistics that it left reviewers confused? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dungeon Siege III. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Dungeon Siege III), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Deleted Article David Strickel

Hello, I am not sure why my article was deleted. I have many references found and I do think they are notable reliable sources. I looked at the category for channellers and many of those names have many less references than the individual that I put up. I was quite proud of the work, I spent a lot of time on it and and want to continue adding valuable content to wiki but a little discouraged. There are tons of notable people that should be on here! I am starting to think my article was targeted by someone that does not like the subject matter. Please help I want to make wiki rock, it's pretty fun once you get into it. Liveatthesummit (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Liveatthesummit: I think Legacypac has already sufficiently explained it when they declined your submission at Draft:David Strickel which you just copied to the article space. Additionally, sources that are by the subject, copied from the subject or involve the subject (such as interviews) are not reliable sources in the context of our policies. There is also no coverage in newspapers or any other such sources that I can find, in fact there are not even 100 Google hits, which in itself is very suspicious for a person that you claim is important. Since the draft still exists, you can work on that and if you can provide sufficient real reliable sources, I'm sure it will be accepted. Regards SoWhy 20:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Adopt Me

Hello @SoWhy: I'm new user autoconfirmed also trying to learn by myself. I'm interested in fighting vandalism & Page Curation in the future. I'm quite active almost 15 hours a day on my Macbook editing & submitting WP:AFD & WP:A7 also I Fix Entertainment (Films) related articles in terms of Grammar & Spellings. I'm really interested in learning and keeping with up with Wikipedia. -- MrZINE 16:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Iamzine13: I'm currently not accepting new adoptees due to real life time constraints but I'm always happy to answer questions you might have (time permitting). Regards SoWhy 20:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion question

Why did u delete the page I created? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vi007In (talk • contribs) 15:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Vi007In: I'm assuming you refer to M P Vijay Kumar? Because it failed to credibly explain why the subject should be considered significant. There were some claims in the article but nothing that would indicate that the person is really significant by our standards since all the claimed awards and similar are not notable. If you can provide me with some evidence that his achievements are something WP:reliable sources have talked about, I'm happy to restore the article. Regards SoWhy 20:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
@SoWhy:

In fact I feel this person meets the guidelines. I will try to consolidate all other relevant references. He is in fact one of the most celebrated professor for accountancy students in India and has published large number of professional books. He is also a member of many many international bodies. Also most influential CFO in India award by CIMA it self is a significant recognition. I will provide you with links to substantiate. Please don't delete fully until I get back to you. Regards. --Vi007In (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


@SoWhy:

M P Vijayakumar is an Indian Chartered accountant and a member of the Central council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India[1]. He is also the Chief financial officer[2][3] of Sify Technologies an Indian software company[4] listed on NASDAQ[5]. He is Vice Chairman of Accounting Standards Board (India) and Financial Reporting Review Board and Chairman of Valuation Standards Board and Digital Accounting and Assurance Board of ICAI [6][7][8].

He is also an academician and has authored multiple books on International Financial Reporting Standards and company law[9][10]. He is a regular resource person on many conferences related to finance in India[11]. He has been awarded as one of the most influential Indian CFO by Chartered Institute of Management Accountants[12][13][14]



  1. ^ "ICAI - The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India". ICAI. Retrieved 2019-02-28.
  2. ^ www.ETCFO.com. "M P Vijay Kumar, CFO, Sify Technologies - The CFO Wall". ETCFO.com. Retrieved 2019-02-28.
  3. ^ "Bloomberg - Are you a robot?". www.bloomberg.com. Retrieved 2019-02-28. {{cite web}}: Cite uses generic title (help)
  4. ^ "M P Vijay Kumar". Sify Technologies. Retrieved 2019-02-28.
  5. ^ "Sify Technologies Limited American Depositary Shares (SIFY)". NASDAQ.com. Retrieved 2019-02-28.
  6. ^ "IFRS". www.ifrs.org. Retrieved 2019-02-28.
  7. ^ "M P Vijay Kumar appointed to IFRS Advisory Council from Jan 2019". CA Page. 2018-12-16. Retrieved 2019-02-28.
  8. ^ "Vijay Kumar – International Standards of Accounting and Reporting". Retrieved 2019-02-28.
  9. ^ "Amazon.in: M. P. Vijay Kumar: Books". www.amazon.in. Retrieved 2019-02-28.
  10. ^ "M P Vijay Kumar". www.goodreads.com. Retrieved 2019-02-28.
  11. ^ Reporter, Staff (2017-12-25). "Indore: 2-day national conference of ICAI in city from Dec 29". Freepressjournal : Latest Indian news,Live updates. Retrieved 2019-02-28.
  12. ^ "Sify CFO is the most influential". CIOL. 2015-08-14. Retrieved 2019-02-28.
  13. ^ technuter (2015-08-14). "Sify CFO M P Vijay Kumar recognized as one of the 'Most influential CFOs of India' by CIMA, London". Technuter. Retrieved 2019-02-28.
  14. ^ "Sify Technologies CFO Recognized as one of the 'Most influential CFOs of India'". digitalterminal.in. Retrieved 2019-02-28.

--Vi007In (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


I have elaborated and added more reliable sources. Please review. --Vi007In (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Others http://www.efaa.com/events/digital-transformation-of-smes.html http://www.iodglobal.com/lgc-speakers-2014.html https://isar.unctad.org/participant/vijay-kumar/ https://www.iasplus.com/en/resources/ifrsf/advisory/ifrs-advisory-council https://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/13/globe-newswire-sify-technologies-limited-chief-financial-officer-m-p-vijay-kumar-recognized-as-one-of-the-most-influential-cfos-of-india.html https://dart.deloitte.com/USDART/obj/9d2742a2-f19f-11e8-a74f-8dd8829d1cf7

https://www.goodreads.com/author/list/14068150.M_P_Vijay_Kumar

@Vi007In: Sure, here you go:
  1. Just the website of an organization
  2. Interview, not a reliable independent source
  3. Dime-a-dozen profile anyone can have
  4. Primary source
  5. Not about the subject
  6. Primary source
  7. Press release
  8. Not a reliable source
  9. Just a list of books
  10. Just a list of books
  11. Press release, one-off mention
  12. Press release
  13. Based on a press release
  14. Based on a press release
You see, none of those are reliable sources that can be used to establish the subject's notability per our standards. I suggest you revisit Wikipedia:Reliable sources and related pages to figure out what kind of sources we look for (hint: none of those above). Regards SoWhy 13:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


  1. Just the website of an organization It is the website of the premier accounting regulator in India
  2. Interview, not a reliable independent source Interview is published in a reputed business newspaper
  3. Dime-a-dozen profile anyone can have included to establish subjects ingenuity
  4. Primary source Its the site of NASDAQ listed company. Its not his page
  5. Not about the subject
  6. Primary source Its not a primary source . Its the website of an independent body
  7. Press release
  8. Not a reliable source United Nations Conference on Trade and Development sister website
  9. Just a list of books These are the books written by the subject
  10. Just a list of books These are the books written by the subject
  11. Press release, one-off mention
  12. Press release
  13. Based on a press release
  14. Based on a press release — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vi007In (talk • contribs) 13:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Just to make it quick:
  1. Which does not talk about the subject
  2. Interviews are never helpful to establish a subject's notability, no matter where they are published.
  3. A directory of businesses and people working for them is not "ingenuity". I could establish SoWhy Inc. and would be listed on such pages without being notable
  4. A primary source is not necessarily the subject's page, it's any source where the content is most likely directly written by the subject (such as profile pages on company websites)
  5.  
  6. See #4
  7.  
  8. See #4
  9. Anyone can write a book and self-publish it these days. That alone does not establish notability
  10. See above
  11.  
  12.  
  13.  
  14.  
I'm trying to help you here, so instead of trying to defend sources that will most certainly be discarded if the page was put up for deletion, heed my advice and try to find sources that won't. And maybe consider the possibility that those might just not exist (yet). Regards SoWhy 14:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Bright Memory

On 6 March 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bright Memory, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that first-person shooter Bright Memory looks and feels like a high-budget game despite being developed by a single person in his spare time? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bright Memory. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bright Memory), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Abinta Kabir Foundation

Back in July 2017, you closed the AfD for the subject article as delete. Is there a way I can compare the state of the article when it was deleted to what it is today? The Foundation makes claim to founding 5 elementary schools in Abinta's honor but the schools are one-room with tin roof and walls per the local Dhaka Tribune article. I can't find any sources that verify whether or not the schools are legitimate (accredited?) learning institutions. If they are, it may serve to help the Foundation meet GNG but the pragmatist in me says it may still fail for the reasons it failed in 2017. I would very much appreciate your thoughts. Atsme 📣 📧 00:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: I restored the old revisions. Since the current article features sources that did not exist when the last AFD closed, the question of notability has to be revisited at AFD anyway. Regards SoWhy 08:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me

Thanks for personally contacting me on my talk page about declining two speedy deletion (and giving an explanation) here and here. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: No worries, happy to do so. Regards SoWhy 08:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Adoption request

Hello! I saw you might be open to a new editor looking to be adopted? I'm brand new but have been wanting to get involved for a long time. Mostly looking to copy edit, expand stubs, find sources, that sort of thing. I also just saw a previous post that you are too busy to take on more folks. I'm hoping someone more experienced can look over my work and tell me what I'm doing wrong, especially if it gets rejected and I don't know why! I won't be on a ton...maybe a couple times a week. Oetc (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Oetc: I thought I had turned that off. Yeah, I'm currently probably not active enough to provide any consistent guidance like that but I'm happy to answer questions time permitting. Regards SoWhy 08:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please participate to the talk pages consultation

Hello

Our team at the Wikimedia Foundation is working on a project to improve the ease-of-use and productivity of wiki talk pages. As a Teahouse host, I can imagine you’ve run into challenges explaining talk pages to first-time participants.

We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis – to ask questions, to resolve differences, to organize projects and to make decisions. Communication is essential for the depth and quality of our content, and the health of our communities. We're currently leading a global consultation on how to improve talk pages, and we're looking for people that can report on their experiences using (or helping other people to use) wiki talk pages. We'd like to invite you to participate in the consultation, and invite new users to join too.

We thank you in advance for your participation and your help.

Trizek (WMF), 08:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please participate to the talk pages consultation - link update

The previous message about the talk pages consultation has a broken link.

The correct link has been misinterpreted by the MassMessage tool. Please use the following link: Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019.

Sorry for the inconvenience, Trizek (WMF), 08:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Manana Shalikashvili

Hey I edit conflicted with you as I was adding {{salt}} to the article, with the reasoning: see also ka:მანანა შალიკაშვილი which they have been blocked for on that wiki and ab:Мaнaнa Шьaликaшьвили where they are indeffed for this. Would you mind salting? Praxidicae (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

And I see you already have! Thanks! Praxidicae (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
After three deletions, I usually arrive at the same conclusion. Regards SoWhy 16:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for that. Though i know i typed them, between the first iteration and the final button push i lost the tildes. I appreciate you noticing and adding my name. Happy days, LindsayHello 20:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@LindsayH: No worries. Happens to me frequently as well. Back in the old days I had a userscript that stopped me from making such posts but it stopped working... Regards SoWhy 20:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Flag: Speedy deletion of the page DaniSenpai017

Hi Sowhy,

you flagged my article with G11 unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person"" I didn't write this article of this person to promote products or companies, just the opposite simply quote in the article what he has done as a creator of content, leaving reliable sources about the fact, sources that are independent of the subject itself, 

in according to General notability guideline this subject is suitable for an article,

i wrote this article respecting the parameters and guidelines of wikipedia from a neutral point of view, which I think there was a misunderstanding, as human beings that we are, it is normal that we make mistakes and premature decisions, so I would like you to re-consider the elimination that you did, you can investigate of this subject (if your you want) or check the sources I've put in the article,

Best Regard Migueldedios01 (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Migueldedios01: As you cited, the speedy deletion criterion G11 also applies to unambiguous advertising which only promotes a [...] person. This was the case here. The article was a mere mishmash of language that only served to promote this person without any regards to neutrality. But since you bring it up, there is also no indication of this person meeting the notability guidelines since there are no reliable sources at all that significantly cover the subject. If you can provide such sources (read the links), I'll consider restoring this as a draft. Regards SoWhy 11:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@SoWhy: I read the neutrality article 4x, and is based more on how to avoid conflicts of opinion (topics such as scientists, religious, politicians, etc.) but I could notice in my article, that there are some words that sound biased, which I'll rewrite or withdraw if so required to maintain the neutrality of it.

thanks for making me realize that, and yes, would be great if you do it <3 thanks SoWhy Migueldedios01 (talk) 07:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC) ( https://g.co/kgs/oZzVAX , https://www.imdb.com/name/nm10542663/?ref_=tt_ov_dr , https://www.imdb.com/name/nm10542664/?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm , https://tunein.com/podcasts/Anime/DanimeShow-p1146655/?lang=es

Article Assessment

Hello sir, I'm AR.Dmg (talk · contribs) could you assist me on the article assessment of my created articles. AR.Dmg (talk) 08:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@AR.Dmg: Assessment should probably be handled by someone familiar with the subjects in question. I suggest you add relevant WikiProject banners to the talk pages of your articles (leaving the assessment empty), thus listing them for these WikiProjects as in need of assessment. Interested editors can then easily find these articles. You can use user scripts such as User:Kephir/gadgets/rater or User:Evad37/rater to easily add such templates. Regards SoWhy 10:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

abi angelos

please undelete abi angelos he is an official artist and all the notes on article was right — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhapatel15121 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Abhapatel15121: Yeah, no. The page was a mess of promotional language and apparent attempts to use Wikipedia to boost someone (most likely you). Fittingly, there were no sources except iTunes for anything. Feel free to pick a service out of Comparison of free web hosting services to create a homepage for Mr. Angelos but Wikipedia is not the place for it. Regards SoWhy 15:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Seeking WikiGnome Adopter

Hi there,

Longtime reader, first time contributor here. Before I begun contributing, however, I'd like to learn the ropes from a more experienced member of the community.

Let me know if you are open to discussing further.

Best, John — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:EF02:8E00:A57B:160D:791A:72C (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi John. I don't think there is need for that. Wikipedia works based on a be bold principle that invites you to just dive in. If you are unsure, how about you create an account and then dive into The Wikipedia Adventure? It's designed to easily tutor new users in the most basic areas. Of course you can always ask me if you have any questions. PS: Sorry for the late reply, I somehow missed the message. Regards SoWhy 11:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Joseph Trem

Hey! I noticed you deleted the "Joseph Trem" article. I understand that at this time the article didn't include a lot of info and seemed to not be needed on Wikipedia. But, the article is important, as I planned on adding a lot more info on the artist. Please unremoved it. 69.121.195.96 (talk) 11:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

If you can provide some reliable sources that significantly cover the subject, I will be happy to consider it. Regards SoWhy 11:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
  • As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Adele Spitzeder

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Adele Spitzeder you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Spintendo -- Spintendo (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Adele Spitzeder

The article Adele Spitzeder you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Adele Spitzeder for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Spintendo -- Spintendo (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Checking to see if I'm missing something

I agree that RFA uses the phrasing:

"In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail)." (emphasis added)

Referense to "general" or "generally" played a material role in the response of many to the Arbcom case proposal. However, I am puzzled about how that word came to be in the guidance.

The RFA itself does not use the word.

How did we get from RFC wording which says:

"We could expand the discretionary range to 65–75%, making it a 10% range, as opposed to our current 5% range (70–75%)."

to the different standard in the RFA guidance?

(FYI, I have been active in Wikipedia, mostly in copyvio work, and not as close to arbcom/rfa issue for the past few months, so wanted to see if I was missing something before jumping into the discussion.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: The wording using "in general" was added by Biblioworm with this edit after the RFC. However, it's not really a change in policy, merely a different phrasing. As you can see from the diff, the previous wording instead used "Historically" and clarified that the actual decision of passing or failing is subject to the bureaucrats' discretion and judgment, and in some cases further discussion (which has been the wording since 2008). While the wording has varied over the years, almost any version of the instructions included some kind of reminder that these are not fixed numerical values but subject to crat discretion, e.g.
  • Version as of 10 July 2006: The bureaucrats who handle admin promotions review the discussion to see if a general consensus is present (the threshold for consensus here is roughly 75–80 percent support) (emphasis added)
  • Version as of 22 June 2007: The numbers of people supporting, opposing, or expressing another opinion on a candidacy are the main factor in determining consensus. Generally the line between successful and unsuccessful candidacies lies at 75% support, though a few have failed with more support or succeeded with less support. (emphasis added)
  • Version as of 7 April 2009: At the end of that period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. This is sometimes difficult to ascertain, and is not a numerical measurement, but as a general descriptive rule of thumb most of those above ~80% approval pass, most of those below ~70% fail, and the area between is subject to bureaucratic discretion. (emphasis added)
Hope that helps. Regards SoWhy 19:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
SoWhy, I don't disagree that the history of RFA was that the ranges should be viewed as rough rules of thumb rather than hard and fast, but a case can be made that the December 2015 RFC changed from "soft" rules of thumb to a more definitive range. Note that a number of participants preferred two-thirds (66.7%) but accepted 65%. I only noticed one participant who suggested that they could support a value less than 65%. Many of those opposed felt that 65% was too low. A plausible interpretation of the RFC is that no value lower than 65% would be acceptable.
I'm conflicted, because I want the 'crats to have some latitude. However, I think 'crats have been fairly universal and noting that they are supposed to enact the will of the community rather than superimpose their best judgment if it doesn't conform to the clear statement of the community. I would be happy to support the notion that the community ought to add a qualification that the 'crats should treat it as guidance rather than definitive, but that doesn't seem to be what happened. I think it was Avi who suggested that if the community wants an explicit range they should say so explicitly or words to that effect. it seems to me that an RFC establishing an explicit range would be worded virtually identical to the one that happened in December 2015. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Addendum - I subsequently learned that the wording in the RFA guidance was changed with this edit. I haven't yet figured out how I think about the Arbcom case (leaning toward saying that's not their function), nor how I feel about the crat chat, but I am troubled that so many people are leaning on the word "generally" when I'm not convinced that's a fair summary of the RFC. @Biblioworm:. (But I can take this discussion elsewhere, if appropriate.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

We edit-conflicted there probably. See my reply above. Long story short, a variation of "in general" was in use for a long time before that. Regards SoWhy 19:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
SoWhy, Yes, and my reading of the December RFC was that the community changed from "in general" to an explicit range. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
SoWhy, I'll stop now. My goal was to see if I missed something fundamental. I'll now figure out whether I want to make my point somewhere but this isn't the place. Thanks for your prompt and in-depth response. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: Ahh, I understand. Still, I don't think that was what the community intended in the 2015. The question, as you put it, was merely whether to expand the discretionary range numbers but had no other suggestion to rephrase those parts I mentioned above, so I don't think one can successfully argue that the community wanted to change the "in general" part. Also, reading the supports in that section, one notices that a significant number would also support less than 65% and quite a number also opine that RFA is still not a vote. Any "strict" enforcement of these numbers would turn RFA into a vote and that would certainly require an explicit RFC consensus. Regards SoWhy 20:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
SoWhy, good answer. Thanks. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome
Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

... and yes, good answer! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for remembering! And thanks! Regards SoWhy 07:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I remember nothing, was not even on Wikipedia then - but my predecessors have a good archive, see link. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Persian Medium Fiona

User:Markiemark123 has asked for a deletion review of Persian Medium Fiona. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 08:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for deletion I had no idea what I was doing in first place. Any help is grateful Thank you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The.US.hoops (talk • contribs) 14:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@The.US.hoops: No worries. If you need some more help, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Your first article. Regards SoWhy 15:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Help?

Theres no Actor categories of this name Eugene Walter he was actor 30 films. Ryan Pikachu (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ryan Pikachu: Done. I suggest you enable HotCat to be able to quickly add categories in future :-) Regards SoWhy 18:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I already read resting place references. He is not buried in Cailfornia, but he was cremated at the sea due to no his funeral name James Ellison (actor) Ryan Pikachu (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I added new page Richard O. Linke because he died in aged 98. he was buried in Punchbowl National Cemetery. Ryan Pikachu (talk) 03:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
thanks NamelessLameless (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

List of Presidents of the US

Yup, sorry - definitely a mistake. I was on the site at the time all right, and can only assume I misclicked when scrolling on my Watchlist. Apologies. Regards, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Bastun: No worries. Might I suggest you install User:Zvn/confirmwatchlistrollback.js? It prevents accidental rollbacks from the Watchlist by asking you to confirm. Regards SoWhy 14:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Rama Arbitration Case

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 10, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Previous listing as a party

My apologies for the above section stating that you are a party. You are not, I made a mistake with the template. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad: No worries. I'll still see if I can help out with some more evidence although I think Rama has helpfully provided a lot of it themselves by now. Regards SoWhy 20:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Closure of AN discussion re paid editing

Re [2] I hadn't spotted the link I followed was to the archive rather than the main page. However, my point still stands that discussion at WP:AN#Close/move details why formal closure of this discussion is desired, even though everybody agrees that it cannot result in a change in policy. I don't believe the policy should be changed, but I do believe a formal closure of the discussion would be a benefit to the project. Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: I stand by my decision. If there is nothing to assess, then that should be the outcome and that was why a neutral admin was asked to give their opinion. In fact, adding some kind of close would only muddy the waters because (again) the policy does not allow it. That said, I will close the section about closing clarifying that there is nothing to close. I think that should be enough and make it clear to anyone involved to move on to a more appropriate venue. Regards SoWhy 15:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not going to carry this on further, but I do feel that you have completely missed the entire point of the reasons why formal closure was requested. Thryduulf (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't think so. I just don't see any benefit that can come out of a formal close of a discussion that "everybody agrees that it cannot result in a change in policy". It's like saying one wants a formal vote on a discussion some members of parliament had in a bar last night. Sure, they can come to some kind of agreement but since everybody knows that discussions in a bar are not the way to enact formal change, doing so would only serve to give something that by definition cannot have a formal end the appearance of formality. Since the discussion had already died a natural death, all that was left to do was to stop the discussion on whether it also needs to die a formal death. Regards SoWhy 15:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

A note regarding your closing summary: WP:PAID is the paid-disclosure policy page, whereas the discussion is about limits on paid editing, which is part of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § Paid editing. (Some people want to extend WP:PAID to cover all aspects of paid editing, but it would be kind of confusing, because the page basically echoes the paid disclosure policy in the Wikimedia terms of use, which contains a specific provision on enacting an alternative policy specifically regarding disclosure. For simplicity it's easier to keep the page to just paid disclosure.) isaacl (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
 Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Richard Cottle

You recently declined a resubmission I have been working on for several months, with the comment: "Please add some sources, don't just fix the text and resubmit." Did you even bother to see there are now eight sources? Don't blindly accuse me of reediting without adding sources without proof, OK? Also, His body of work, including the eminent artists he has performed with, makes him notable. And he also has a VIAF entry, meaning he has made notable contributions.72.160.24.204 (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that none of the sources added actually cover the subject in any meaningful way but just mention him in passing. Unfortunately, just mentioning that someone participated somewhere is not sufficient to write an article. All the information about his life has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is significant coverage in reliable sources (see also Wikipedia:Verifiability#Notability). While I'm aware that it's frustrating, all biographical information is still sourced to this fan page which is not a reliable source. Regards SoWhy 13:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society

Dear SoWhy/Archive 30,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Urhixidur (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Urhixidur: Thanks for the invite and also making me feel old. Regards SoWhy 16:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Grumpy Cat

On 17 May 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Grumpy Cat, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

EvergreenFir (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 33

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 33, March – April 2019

  • #1Lib1Ref
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

May I please have my page back.

Dear SoWhy, I was working on the page Michael F. Rehill and it was recently deleted. The reason for it not having citation was because it was still in progress. I would like to work on the page more with citation. May I please have my page back. Thank You

From, Llaudable Llama

@Llaudable Llama: The page was deleted because there was no indication why this subject should be considered significant or important. I have restored the page as a draft to Draft:Michael F. Rehill where you can work on it in peace while making sure you indicate why the subject is notable. Once you are done, add {{submit}} to the page to request a review by a neutral editor. PS: To sign your posts, just add ~~~~ to the end of your comment and the software will automatically add your signature and a timestamp. Regards SoWhy 12:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
This is for your valuable efforts on contributing to Wikipedia as an administrator. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 11:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Regards SoWhy 12:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Virginia Crosbie

This article has just been reviewed and approved by a Wiki editor. Paid contributions were declared in accordance with Wikipedia's T&Cs. Please detail your reasons for reverting to the current revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahkey512 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ahkey512: I had redirected this article before you first edited it, so I think you meant to ask the editor who did so later, not me. Otherwise, please clarify. Regards SoWhy 07:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@SoWhy: Apologies, the edit message was rather unclear. Ahkey512 (talk) 09:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Optional_RfA_candidate_poll#Shut this down?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Optional_RfA_candidate_poll#Shut this down?. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

Administrator changes

removed Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

removed Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
  • An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
  • An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

  • The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
  • Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

You’ve got mail

Hello, SoWhy. 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.

OkayKenG (talk) 08:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the response the other day! OkayKenG (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines 2

Hello, SoWhy,

Thanks for creating Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines 2! I edit here too, under the username FULBERT and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Well-sourced article, but there seems to be some aspects that are too closely linked to previous online works. Please revise to avoid the close paraphrasing.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|FULBERT}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

FULBERT (talk) 01:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@FULBERT: I just created a redirect, you might want to contact the editor who turned it into an article, Darkwarriorblake. Regards SoWhy 06:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
And I now see that the tag was removed because the "source" was actually copying from Wikipedia. Regards SoWhy 07:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated seems belligerent

That user seems belligerent at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Freelandia_(2nd_nomination). Also their reply at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ProofWiki is bizarre. Dunno if further action is needed. Thought I might let you know since you're a friendly admin. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Tyw7 is a justifiable WP:TROLL?
They transcluded my user page against my will!
I want WP:PROTECTive autoimmunity!!
And they deserve the death penalty for WP:LF racism!!!
This is what I want protectively deleted: User:Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated
This is what I want to keep: User:Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated/UP
-- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 11:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated, I assumed that you made a mistake and not created the user page. So I transcluded it. And calling me a Troll? Did you bother reading WP:TROLL you linked to. The page says "Wikipedia:Don't call editors trolls" --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Tyw7: In order for you to know about User:Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated/UP you would have had to read my talk page; so either you're mentally disabled, or WP:TROLL? Take your pick! (You obviously haven't read beyond the title of the page.) -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 11:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated, WP:No personal attacks --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Tyw7: You suspiciously posted here, and blanked the page you made, at 11:38; exactly one minute after I posted User talk:Shyamal#My User Page at 11:37. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 12:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated, well you said you want the page blanked so I did. I assumed you made a mistake and forgot to create your user page. I posted here since you seem belligerent as your post above proves. I wanted a second opinion from an admin and I think SoWhy is fair and impartial.
Also see WP:AGF --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Are you User:Shyamal? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Tyw7: WP:NOBAN; you never communicated with me about my user page, and my talk page makes it abundantly clear. On your talk page, I said to undo what you did; you have failed to do so. If I was User:Shyamal; I'd undo what you did, and sentence you to a life ban for WP:BULLYING. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Tyw7: I'm pretty sure this user is not the admin with the similar name. While I understand your concerns and see no problem with your clearly good-faith edits, I suggest you disengage at this point.
@Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated: Users are not blocked for good faith edits but they are blocked for personal attacks and disruptive behavior, so please accept Tyw7's apology and stop your name calling and casting aspersions. Otherwise, you will indeed see a block but it will be against you.
Regards SoWhy 12:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
SoWhy, actually the reason I contacted you was the name calling on the AFDs. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@SoWhy: You haven't protectively deleted my page; go ahead, and block me; I'll report you for WP:LF, and you'll lose your adminship, while I get unblocked. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated: There is no requirement for any admin to do anything, we are all volunteers. I merely warned you against continuing with personal attacks and casting aspersions because that will get you blocked sooner or later.
@Tyw7: I understand and as you saw, I asked them to stop. If it continues, feel free to ask for assistance here or at WP:ANI. Regards SoWhy 12:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@SoWhy: User talk:Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated#Please create a userpage makes it abundantly clear; this is not WP:ASPERSIONS. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm keeping an eye on you; both of you. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Hiya, I had been looking at a few of the user's contributions I noticed a comment at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#News where they said "fake news" to a comment that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. They also added these remarks --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:RAA -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what you want me to do here. Regards SoWhy 17:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I was sharing it with User:Tyw7; User:Shyamal gave it to me, and I used it to get my user page protectively deleted successfully, so User:Tyw7 may have better luck there too. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
SoWhy, I don't know either. I guess I just to let you know.
I don't think this is worthy of ANI, right? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@Tyw7: As I said above, disengaging seems appropriate at this moment. If they violate civility or NPA policies again, ANI can be the way to go but at the moment, it does not seem necessary. Regards SoWhy 17:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
SoWhy, ok I'll rely on your judgement and let another person report them if they become egregious. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Update about a script you use

Hi SoWhy. I'm DannyS712 (talk), and I wanted to send you a warning about a change I am making to a script, User:DannyS712/DiscussionCloser, that you currently import. If you are an administrator, feel free to ignore this message. For non-administrators, you should be advised that I am removing the script's automatic addition of {{nac}} to your closes. If you have relied on this to mark such closes for you, please remember to add {{nac}} yourself. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk)


Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 01:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk)

Request for Undeletion Informatics(India) Limited

Hi SoWhy. I'm Jarvis (talk), and I wanted to request you to undelete the page Informatics(India) Limited which you just deleted, I would like to inform you that I will further develop this article by making it a draft and later submit it. I will also ensure to include necessary citations. Thanks, --Jarvis (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jarvis crypter:  Done, find it at Draft:Informatics (Indian company). Regards SoWhy 09:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Transparent Media Portal

Hi - I hope you don't mind me reaching out to you. I've read this essay about speedy deleters, and I try to be mindful of it when reviewing pages. I ended up nominating this at AfD, but I'm now questioning my judgment and wondering whether I should have CSDed is as G11, so I wondered whether you might be able to give me your take on it.

The article doesn't start out too badly, but as you read down on becomes more of piece of advocacy than an encyclopedia article. Do you think I should have CSDed this? Thanks in advance for any advice you can offer. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 20:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: G11 only applies if there is nothing salvageable in the article, i.e. if there were no article left once you removed all the spammy language. If the page contains both sufficiently neutral and clearly promotional bits, the editing policy advises to just remove the promotional parts instead of deleting the whole page. I think this applies here too, if you removed everything after the first paragraph, you'd still have a stub article left that others can build upon. Regards SoWhy 06:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks - I appreciate the guidance. GirthSummit (blether) 09:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Shyam_Has_Your_Anomaly_Mitigated_has_been_casting_aspersions_and_had_been_a_bit_uncivil. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Flixbus

Please expalin in more details why you deleted my contribution for the FlixBus page? It was based on the numerous references from the real peoples reviews on the TripAdvisor (verified users with numerous reviews), Publications in the newspaper and also reports of the real users (with full names) on the Facebook "fan page" of Flixbus itself. Is there any specific objection about any of the source? Also how you deleted the contibution without living a trace in the "revision history"? Please ground your decision. Please confirm that you have no affiliation with Flixbus, Flixmobility and the relevant business entities with your job as the lawyer in the region (South Germany). Note: see the "Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents" for the relevant discussion. 

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashafir (talk • contribs) 07:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@Ashafir: I did not, Praxidicae did. I merely left you that message because she had forgotten to do so (and I reminded her as well). Your additions were removed because they constitute original research based on non-neutral, non-reliable sources. You were also invited to discuss your edits at Talk:Flixbus. Be aware that continuing to reinsert your additions against opposition can be seen as edit warring and lead to sanctions. Regards SoWhy 09:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Liberation Tour (Mary J. Blige and D'Angelo)

Is or was unfairly for you to have delete or request for deletion of article page Liberation Tour (Mary J. Blige & D'Angleo). Although Christina Aguilera also has a title of the same name for a tour she did. Mary J. Blige and D'Angelo same tour name was a few years before Christina Aguilera same tour name. Industry promotion, media and both the artists promoted their tour as The Liberation Tour (2012-13). For example: Janet Jackson's tour in 2015 is Unbreakable Tour, and other music acts have had the same tour titled name.

Unbreakable Tour From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unbreakable Tour may refer to: 

   Unbreakable Tour (Backstreet Boys tour) (2008–2009)
   Unbreakable World Tour (Janet Jackson tour) (2015–2016)
   Unbreakable World Tour (Scorpions tour) (2004–2006)
   Unbreakable Tour (Tori Kelly tour) (2016)
   Unbreakable Tour (Westlife concert tour) (2003)

The name of the same tour, song or album is listed with example: > tour name (artist name) or song name (artist). Would it have been better to list article pages titles for Liberation Tour for these artists as example:

The Liberation Tour (Christina Aguilera) or just Liberation Tour

[[Liberation Tour (Mary J. Blige & D'Angelo) or The Liberation Tour (Mary J. Blige & D'Angleo)

A better solution then to just deletion of Mary J. Blige and D'Angleo Liberation Tour article page.

Dshun (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Dshun: I deleted the page based on this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberation Tour (Mary J. Blige and D'Angelo) because ot was not notable. I'm unsure what you expect or wish to see here, please clarify. Regards SoWhy 09:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Draft_talk:Clarice_E._Phelps#When_can_we_publish_this_page?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Draft_talk:Clarice_E._Phelps#When_can_we_publish_this_page?. You might be interested to read my last comment. Also, thankfully, peer-reviewed stuff are still the scholarship-standard, not Twitter. ∯WBGconverse 08:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Thanks for the invite but I'm not sure why you notified me. I have not edited the article before iirc and I merely commented at one DRV in favor of endorsing the deletion based on the fact that the originally used reasons for deletion still existed. I don't really have more interest in her biography. Regards SoWhy 09:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

Hi SoWhy,

Thanks for all your work on wikipedia. I submitted an article for "Andrew Donoho" that had unreliable sources. I just wanted to let you know that I fixed the page and added references that are more reliable. I'm sure you have an inbox full of people requesting to be reviewed again (especially from those that have a conflict of interest with the subject, like myself), so I apologize for adding to the workload. Hopefully these links are up to par.

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

Thanks!

Andrewdonoho (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Andrewdonoho: Sure, no problem. Unfortunately, the same problems persist. The sources mention the subject (i.e. you I guess) but that's it. There is no information about you in them except that this or that video was directed by you. We don't just need reliable sources for articles, we need sources that provide significant coverage. To quote the guideline: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. (emphasis added). These sources do not provide any details about you per se, so they are not enough to establish notability. Regards SoWhy 19:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply. Needing references centered around me makes sense. I have made an update that I'm hoping satisfies the need. I also have a few televised interviews, behind the scenes, and blog interviews that I would be happy to add if you think it helps. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Andrew_Donoho I hope this isn't coming off as a vanity post. I'm mentioned on a few dozen wiki pages, and I'm hoping to simply find a way to link the mentions with this page, allowing anyone interested in my work to find it more easily. Andrewdonoho (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewdonoho (talk • contribs) 20:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Andrewdonoho: Unfortunately, those sources fail the requirement of being "independent". #1 and #3 are clearly (recycled) press releases and #2 is just a passing mention again. #4 is merely a iTunes description (I guess, I don't have it installed to check). I understand the wish to see your name on Wikipedia but that will be more likely if you focused on getting independent journalists to write a piece on you or two. After all, Wikipedia is merely a mirror of real-world interest. If there is no interest in a subject by independent reliable sources, there is nothing for us to use as well. PS: There is no need to start a new section to reply, just edit this one and add a reply below. Don't forget to sign! Regards SoWhy 07:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

A dove

Peace dove I hope we work together on the project in the future
If two people agree on everything - one of them is not necessary. Lubbad85 (☎)(Edits) 20:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Why did you delete the page I worked on?

Just as the title says. I worked on the page for the Legion of St. Ambrose, and you apparently deleted it because it wasn't important enough? It's an activate neo-fascist group, I fail to see how that's not important. Docktuh (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Docktuh: Seeing as there are a number of such groups (unfortunately), being active is not a helpful indicator for important. My D&D club is active but certainly nothing anyone would expect to read about in an encyclopedia. If and when you can explain why this group should be considered especially important compared to other such groups, preferably by supplying examples of significant coverage of the group in reliable sources, I'd be happy to restore the page. Regards SoWhy 13:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

Administrator changes

removed 28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam1 • Flyguy649 • Fram2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikimania 2020 Bangkok

Hi. I won't be going to Stockholm most unfortunately, because I really can't afford $3,000 just for 5 days in the far north of Europe. I'll leave that trip to the Europeans and the 70-strong WMF junket. But next year Wikimania is right on my doorstep. I hope you will be able to come. I will be making absolutely sure that my friends who are able to come will have a great time. Regards, Chris. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Al Amin Shehzad

I think your declination of CSD on this page might have been an error. It was a recreation of a page that was CSDed not 12 hours ago. The creator is eponymous. They've violated 3RR and blanked entire page, removed tags, removed CSD tags, etc. after this version was created. The stats, not even name could be verified from the only source. May be the CSD was reported with a wrong criterion, please look at the previously deleted page, its history, talk page, history of the current page and contribution history of the creator if you have the time. I have reported the user to Vandalism noticeboard as well. Thanks! Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 08:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: Previous speedy deletions are not binding, especially not when performed by an admin with a track record of bad decisions in that area. The behavioral problems are indeed problematic and I've blocked the editor as a SPA account. As for the article, you are correct. I missed that the claims are not credible, so I deleted it now. Apologies for the inconvenience. Regards SoWhy 08:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your swift action and answer (that's illuminating as well). No inconvenience at all. Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 09:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of my article

Hi Was wondering why my article has been deleted as I have produced reference with it. Please reply to me and help me in restoring my article. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mightyupdate (talk • contribs) 21:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mightyupdate: I assume you refer to Shaheel Kunnath Palliyalil? Easy, because the article contained no reason to assume that the subject was significant or important and a search for reliable sources about the subject turned up empty too. You did add two links but neither can be qualified as a reliable source. As such, I cannot restore the article at this time. If and when you can provide reliable sources (real newspapers, books, academic journals etc.) covering the subject in detail, this can be discussed again. Regards SoWhy 07:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes Issue 34, May – June 2019

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 34, May – June 2019

  • Partnerships
  • #1Lib1Ref
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Yes. A principled defense. Even IPs should have access to WP:PROD. Well said. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
@7&6=thirteen: Thank you very much! Regards SoWhy 16:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Need your help to save the article

Dear Sowhy i need your help to save this article because as far as i know a stub article with reliable references is notable, kindly look in to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zcode_System.Eomck (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Eomck: While I agree that Stwalkerster made a mistake deleting this article as unambiguously promotional since the text was mostly acceptable, I don't see any reason to assume the article would have survived a deletion discussion, since the subject is not notable as far I can tell. The "sources" in the article certainly do not constitute significant coverage in reliable sources and I cannot find any others online. If you disagree, you need to ask Stwalkerster to reverse their decision or, if they refuse, initiate a deletion review. Regards SoWhy 15:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi i was paid a few years ago to write about entity markdabeast1 is there a way we can clear this up ? Elizabethg507 (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Re: Press releases

Using official records for a statement of fact like the number of votes received is in my opinion better. The BBC article is not a good example either, as it shows localism in the very first line ("despite strong opposition earlier from Britain"), so it's more biased (as in geographically biased) than the Europen Commission communication. Nemo 06:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: I think you misunderstand that point. The "localism" you mention is merely a neutral statement of fact. The UK government's opposition to Juncker is a well-established fact (e.g. [3] [4] [5] [6]). Noting this fact does not make the BBC source "biased" in any way. On the other hand, the "official record" you cite has all the hallmarks of a subjective press release, using phrases like "a strong majority" and consisting mainly of political statements of the candidate. Regards SoWhy 06:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
It's a fact but an irrelevant one, you wouldn't put it in the lead section of the Wikipedia article for instance. The speech of the candidate of course contains political statements, but the reference was only using the introduction above it. Nemo 06:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@Nemo bis: Actually, it's a quite notable fact, that definitely needs to be included in an article about the candidacy or the candidate and in fact was included in his article prominently. But it still does not disqualify the BBC or Politico for that matter as reliable secondary sources for this fact, so I'm still unsure why you think the primary press release that contains clearly subjective language is a better source than either secondary source I mentioned. Regards SoWhy 07:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Not really, it's a secondary fact which can be mentioned in the details on how the candidacy was put forward: it doesn't even feature in the main agenzia of Italy, for instance, as most EU countries did not care at all. It's definitely a sign of localism to have it in the first line.
Let's try it from another angle: do you also disagree with mentioning the Queen's speech as source for its date, or records of Bundestag speeches as the source of another? Nemo 08:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Mark White

Hi, I saw you doing the cleanup on the Mark White page. The author moved it to Draft to try & avoid my speedy. As I noted here Draft_talk:Mark_White_Jr this is a page that's been repeatedly deleted then recreated by someone who's had multiple sock puppets banned. This is pretty clearly a new one, I'd already reached out to someone else for help opening a new SPI. I don't know if there's a way to speedy a draft under the circumstances? Thanks for your help! JamesG5 (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I’m a paid editor of this entity what can I do to redeem his name ? Elizabethg507 (talk) 08:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@JamesG5: If this is a case of socking, the pages created can be deleted per WP:G5. I would suggest tagging the pages as {{db-g5}} if the SPI is positive.
@Elizabethg507: Please see the message on your talk page with instructions on what to do next, especially regarding declaring your connection. You are allowed to submit a draft through WP:AFC by using the "Submit" button on the draft template that is now on the page. A neutral editor will then review your page for inclusion. I strongly advise against trying to move it back to article space again, it will most likely be deleted immediately then. Regards SoWhy 08:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@JamesG5: thanks for reaching out to me on my talk page re the SPI. Responding here as this seems where most of the conversation takes place. Despite (late) disclosures by Elizabethg507 this seems a sock/meatpuppetry block circumvention for (self)promo purposes. I have raised the SPI for a more comprehensive review. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 11:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@Jake Brockman: thanks to you & SoWhy for the help, I came here because of the whole move bit, which happened after I'd messaged you. JamesG5 (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Quite bold

indeed .... Somebody appearing after a gap of 2 years, straight into a RFA ..... ~ Winged BladesGodric 18:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

This RFA attracts a lot of people who are not regulars, on both sides. That still does not justify calling editors who previously edited without any irregularities "socks" without prior SPI. I think we can trust the crat(s) handling the close to appropriately weigh such !votes without having to remove them. Regards SoWhy 19:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank You Note

A quick thank you for your efforts regarding the new article, Trainwreckstv. Here is to Wikipedia becoming better and better every day. alby13 (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Seven years!

All the best for your FAC! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, both for your help and wishes and you remembering my "precious" day. Regards SoWhy 14:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

SpellForce 3: Soul Harvest

Thank you for creating the article. While I have to admit that I am shocked at the lack of English sources, the DLC is absolutely notable as demonstrated. Saw that it is still in "construction", so there are few references I have found that could help you: Digitally Downloaded (reliable per WP:VG/RS and in English, hooray!) [7], PC Magazine Greece [8], Le Soir [9], and Mladá fronta DNES (an internet version of it) [10]. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jovanmilic97: Thank you! I plan to work on it some more during my lunch break but feel free to add stuff to it. I'll tag the article with {{inuse}} when I'm actively working on it. Regards SoWhy 05:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Will do when I have some time to help! I have been working on creating Nevermind (2015 video game), so I have been a bit busy (I really hope I demonstrated the notability of the game well). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Elsie Joy Davison

On 13 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Elsie Joy Davison, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Elsie Joy Davison was Britain's first female director of an aircraft company and its first woman pilot to die in World War II? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Elsie Joy Davison. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Elsie Joy Davison), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

RfA

Hello SoWhy, Would you do a huge favor for me that you do not mind if you nomimate the user Adam9007 for administrator because he made outstanding contributions especially he had help M32 motorway to get the WP:GA status, but he had focusing mostly on Video game related articles such as Dungeon Keeper. Putting it aside he had a good track record on WP:CSD and WP:VANDALISM which he did in good faith. Before you do that if you wish you have look for more track record because i'am currently busy at the moment, Thank you. Sheldybett (talk) 07:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sheldybett: You might want to ask Adam first what he thinks about that before asking others to nominate him. Apart from that, I don't think I would be the right person to evaluate him impartially. Adam shares a number of my views on policy, especially deletion, so I think any evaluation of his track record might be skewed by these past interactions. If Adam truly wishes to run for admin, he should ask someone he did not have much interaction with to evaluate his chances realistically, preferably someone who does not share his views. Regards SoWhy 07:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I will have to ask somebody else instead. Sheldybett (talk) 07:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

SoWhy, I have asked GoingBatty for the RfA instead, if it's alright for you. Sheldybett (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library

I see that you are an account coordinator of TWL. I've just submitted my application to access Cambridge core. But I see that it's waitlisted. What does this mean? Would you be willing to review my request? Masum Reza📞 03:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Masumrezarock100: Waitlisted means that there are currently no accounts available for this resource but if new accounts are made available, they will be distributed to those on the waitlist. Unfortunately, I cannot help you with that resource because I have no access to it. Regards SoWhy 06:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I see. Thanks anyway. Masum Reza📞 14:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of SpellForce 3: Soul Harvest

Hello! Your submission of SpellForce 3: Soul Harvest at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Adoption

Hello :)

I'm Siobhan Wilson and I'm new to Wikipedia. (very new - I joined two hours ago!) I'm 28 and based in London, UK. I love learning new things but am finding all the information on how to edit and clean up articles very overwhelming! I saw that you're looking for adoptees, and are a Wikignome, which seems closely aligned with my own interests :)

Would it be possible to mentored by you please?

Kind Regards, Siobhan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siobhan Wilson (talk • contribs) 15:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Siobhan Wilson: I swear I thought I had put that on hold...hmmm, ah, whatever. Hey and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy your stay. I'm currently a bit busy with real life and stuff, so I can't give you a 24/7 adoption experience but I can offer trying to answer any and all questions you might encounter when editing Wikipedia, albeit maybe with a slight delay.
For starters, I know editing can be complicated, so have you checked out The Wikipedia Adventure? If you are a bit inclined towards games, it offers a quick and fun way to learn the basics of editing and the core policies and guidelines you should be familiar with.
I'll also leave a message on your talk page with a lot of helpful links you can check out. If you have further questions, feel free to ask. Of course, if I'm not available, you can always come to the tea house and ask for help there. Last but not least, when leaving someone a message, remember to sign it using ~~~~ (which will automatically add your name and date.
Regards SoWhy 16:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

BEFORE

I just saw your comments (over a month old) in the AfD discussion page regarding editors nominating frivolous AfDs against articles without doing a proper WP:BEFORE. You properly noted that many of these are high volume editors with extended rights. I am in agreement with you, something should be done. One of the examples you cited turned out to be an AfD I essentially rescued. I'm not blowing my own horn. I simply think that there should be a penalty, a restriction against editors who create ill-founded AfDs. Failing to do a BEFORE, nominating and voting to delete SNOW-KEEPs should count points against an editor. Too many points and their ability to create new AfDs gets restricted. If the points keep coming, they progressively earn more restrictions until their AfD creation and voting rights are terminated.

The odds in an AfD are severely stacked against KEEP. There is an echo chamber of thoughtless DELETE voters who seemingly will vote against everything standing in the AfD column on a given day. It takes far more effort by editors like me to do the research (what should have been done in WP:BEFORE) and to litigate to save an article, than it does to have potentially a swath of content removed if one of us does not notice in time. And ultimately that hurts the users of wikipedia because the content they seek simply is not there. Implementing a system to enforce this is going to be a difficult political effort here. Those powerful editors are already admins, or have admins in their pocket. But consider me an ally as you press for enforcement of WP:BEFORE. And maybe some day we can find enough of us to push through some real enforcement on these abusive editors. Trackinfo (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that AFD is flawed since it often attracts editors that are interested in racking up AFD !votes and not careful research. That said, those that continually violate AFD rules by nominating notable subjects for deletion without prior BEFORE checks can be sanctioned but the pattern needs to be clear, e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive974#TenPoundHammer (although I admit that it took a loooong time for the community to learn that lesson). Nevertheless, if you notice someone routinely violating BEFORE, I would confront them with it and if they persist, report them at ANI. That's the only way to tackle it at this point. I like the idea of a point system in general but I fear that it a) won't work in practice and b) won't be accepted by the community. Regards SoWhy 19:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

"Lil Chan" article for denand

Hello. Admin. Please watch "Lil Chan" article.now alarming time reach.Please protect "Lil Chan" article. Please.Ninja🍼 chaN nyeiN 06:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninja chan nyein (talk • contribs)

@Ninja chan nyein: Articles are only protected if a reason per the protection policy exists. This is not the case. They are especially not protected to prevent a deletion nomination. If you believe the subject to be notable, participate in the deletion discussion by providing multiple reliable sources that cover the subject in depth. Regards SoWhy 06:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Help me for "Lil Chan" article

@SoWhy:

Mingalar. This situation,How I can do for this article stay on wikipedia.please made correct,side of truth.This name "Lil Chan" is really have in myanmar, really singer. a lot of myanmar media on displayed.I also reference explicit. Please admin, my writing and added reference checking. worries will be delete article.help me demandNinja🍼 chaN nyeiN 09:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Please see my answer above. There is nothing an admin can do here nor am I particularly interested in this topic as an editor. Regards SoWhy 10:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Venetica

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Venetica you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Abryn -- Abryn (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Jiella

Could you please restore this article? I was in the middle of working on it when you deleted it. -Yupik (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Yupik: Sure, no problem. I put it at Draft:Jiella where you can work on it in (relative) peace until it no longer meets the criteria for speedy deletion. Regards SoWhy 08:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for SpellForce 3: Soul Harvest

On 28 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article SpellForce 3: Soul Harvest, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that some critics prefaced their reviews of SpellForce 3: Soul Harvest with assurances that it was not as buggy as the main game? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/SpellForce 3: Soul Harvest. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, SpellForce 3: Soul Harvest), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

2019 Arbitration Committee pre-election RfC

A request for comment is now open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. You are receiving this message because you were listed as a user who would like to be notified when the 2019 RfC begins. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Venetica

The article Venetica you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Venetica for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Abryn -- Abryn (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Sahoo Plot

I Removed It Because The Movie Is Running In Theatres If Someone Knew The Story How They Can Watch It In Theatres So I Removed It Kumar8121 (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kumar8121: I understand. In this case, please don't. Wikipedia has an explicit guideline against such removals in Wikipedia:Spoiler, so such removals have to be treated as disruptive editing. Regards SoWhy 18:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Thanks for your comment in the discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard. I don't want to pester everyone with yet another remark that some won't like and just wanted to tell you that I did not engage in a deletion review as to me it seems much more important than an article on some physician who makes his fortune with questionable practices for celebrities that Wikipedia should follow due processes and draftification is not abused to circumvent deletion discussions as the rules explicitly say it is not acceptable. In general I am concerned that some users treat especially the newer ones in a condescending way and refuse to justify their actions. That way we will frighten off good faith new users and the whole project will further suffer from a lack of new users that are willing to work also on unpleasant tasks like conflicts about niche topics like this one. Then we are just left with those who tend to treat the common good as their private property. Omikroergosum (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that but I think you missed my point. DRV is for cases in which a mistake was made. AN(I) is for cases where a pattern of mistakes can be demonstrated. Furthermore, while I am against unilateral draftification, the community has so far rejected all proposals to stop it. Regards SoWhy 13:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
As I showed in the AN discussion, the Draft rules clearly say draftification is not acceptable as a means to circumvent deletion discussions. This rule is ignored all the time, which is why I think AN is the right place to discuss rather than DRV. I had tried to move to AN/I when an administrator had not only draftified, reverted a reversion of his deletion by a user who confirmed that the negative content was based on valid sources but also blocked recreation and then even deleted the draft in spite of me clearly having shown that this is all violation of the WP rules and then he even threatened me to block me although an admin should refrain from taking further actions when accused of wrongdoing himself.
Why do you overrule a deletion decision but don't restore the article? Omikroergosum (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Again, I'm aware of written rules and also of the current consensus to treat it more like a suggestion than a policy. The correct place to change this would be a policy RFC to create a binding rule against such draftifications although again, I don't think there is consensus for it. As long as the community sees no problem with users ignoring the editing and deletion policies in these cases, there is no reason to assume that any editor violating said policies in this manner will be disciplined. Regards SoWhy 18:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Breaking a written rule claiming there is no consensus on it is just a violation of the rules. As several users with wrong claims are able to make sure the work of someone who contributed with countless top quality and international sources that according to wikipedia rules clearly establish notability is destroyed I refuse to further contribute to this project. Just wanted to thank you for being the one who at least admits things are wrong. Greetings to Canada! Omikroergosum (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

Administrator changes

added Bradv • Chetsford • Izno
readded Floquenbeam • Lectonar
removed DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

removed Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

removed Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

A user named Harshil169 is unessecerely editing...

User:Harshil169 is tracking my profile and constantly adding unconstructive edits and deletion tags on pages I have created like Sanat Kumara Chakravarti his/her activities should be monitored and I recommend him/her to be blocked if he/she continues this kind of attacking attitude please look into this issue of his attitude he is also not openly discussing about the issues related to articles Rishabh.rsd (talk) 06:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Rishabh.rsd: You both just edit the same areas but I fail to see a clear case of them tracking your edits specifically. I do admit though that hounding is not my area of expertise, so if you continue to believe that there is a real problem, you might want to ask for assistance at WP:ANI for a review by more experienced users. Regards SoWhy 06:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Please see on my talk page every article I have created he is even now presently adding deletion tag anyways thanks Rishabh.rsd (talk) 06:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Requesting the deletion of articles is in itself not problematic and actually it's you who is in violation of the rules if you remove deletion tags placed by other users, so I suggest you don't, else you will be sanctioned. Regards SoWhy 06:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Please revive the talk page of Anti-Jain Sentiments

As you know that, one user has reported me to the Administrators and the same user called me as hypocrite and fool in the Talk:ANti-Jain Sentiments. I want to make my case strong and hence, requesting you to revive the page temporary so that other admins can look at it. -- Harshil want to talk? 07:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Harshil169: All admins can look at deleted pages, so there is no need to undelete it for this purpose. Regards SoWhy 07:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletion

Hello SoWhy, thanks for your advise, much appreciated. I will be very carefull on my next edits and make sure to read and follow your help page at User:SoWhy/SDA Thanks--Wakowako (talk) 09:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

FAC

I might advise some proactivity in assuring there aren't similar concerns elsewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

You are correct. Most of the problems stem from the translation of de-wiki's article but I will go through the rest and make sure there are no more. Regards SoWhy 16:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Venetica

On 12 September 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Venetica, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that one of the weapons in the video game Venetica was named as a result of a contest? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Venetica. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Venetica), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

valereee (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a discussion about publicly disclosing subscribers of TWL resources

Hi SoWhy, I have started a discussion over our Village pump with the aim of maintaining a public list of all editors who are granted access to any TWL resource. Your thoughts and opinions on the proposal are welcome:-) Regards, ∯WBGconverse

May I create article on Amar Fayaz Buriro

Dear @SoWhy, I need your permission please for creating neutral article on Amar Fayaz Buriro. Here are reference links of Government domains, newspapers and other organizations.

Furthermore there are lots of internal links in Wikipedia articles shows that the person is notable. Moreover in Urdu & Sindhi languages articles on the person are already existing. This is my humble request. I will create the article with most authentic references and in neutral way. Regards --Indusian1236 (talk) 06:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

None of those links even come close to significant coverage in reliable sources. Most presumably reliable sources only namecheck the subject, if at all and the rest are blogs and self-published sites.There are no links from other articles to this subject either. Other Wikipedia editions have different standards and might include subjects that the English Wikipedia does not. The existence there is in itself no reason to have an article here. Regards SoWhy 11:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks and regards SoWhy. Indusian1236 (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Deleted article: Joseph W Poole

Thanks very much. Email address now activated. Gill Poole — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gill Poole (talk • contribs) 14:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes Sent. Regards SoWhy 15:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Deleted article: Joseph W Poole

Got that. Thanks. It is just the bare bones - not the whole article. The text included, among other things:

His role during WW2 in keeping worship going in Canterbury Cathedral, including a Pathé News film featuring a key address by the then Archbishop, and the Precentor and the choir.

The Litany of Reconciliation written for Coventry Cathedral in 1958 and now used daily in Coventry and around the world.

His ground-breaking liturgies relating to and including the consecration in 1962 of the new Coventry Cathedral designed by Sir Basic Spence.

His recognised contribution to development of liturgy in the Church of England.

His many innovative initiatives with Coventry Cathedral in its early years, including his role in the premier of Benjamin Briton’s Requiem Mass.

Publications of his work by the Royal School of Church Music.

Is there any way to retrieve the full text?

Gill Poole (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gill Poole: Sorry, what I sent you is everything that was in Joseph W Poole before deletion and there is no other deleted version I can find. Possibly you did not save those changes before deletion. Regards SoWhy 18:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@SoWhy: OK. In October 2016 there was a large amount of copy on the page; there is so much that he contributed to worship and liturgy in the 20th century, as described in three books and various articles. I hadn’t realised it had all been cut back. I’m sad I didn’t see and respond to the delete alert in 2017. I’ll have to let it go now. Thanks for looking.Gill Poole (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gill Poole: I checked all revisions back to the first dated 26 October 2016 and none contain more than this. If there was another article not created by you, I cannot find it (Joseph W. Poole never existed and Joseph Poole has been a redirect to Wednesday 13 since 2009). If you find another deleted article about him, I can check that one too, but there is no wildcard search for the deletion log as far as I know. Regards SoWhy 12:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Contesting a speedy deletion

Hello,

I had an admin mark my page for speedy deletion and it was deleted immediately... without a chance to contest it. I am somewhat new to Wikipedia (long time user, new editor/contributor)... so when I visited their talk page, I see that you declined a speedy deletion - and you had a very helpful page to help understand the process - so I thought I would reach out to you directly.

One of the admins deleted a page I created for a musical artist, Gretchen Rhodes. The page was marked as deleted for (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: self-written vanity page, see WP:YFA WP:COI WP:RS WP:Notability (music)).

Admittedly, I am a fan of Gretchen's - but am not connected to her or her company. The article wasn't wasn't advertising or promotion... nor was it a self-written vanity page. Re-reading the article, I would make two changes - but I hardly think that is reason to delete an entire article.

Any help would be appreciated. Even if it's helping me understand how to make the article better so that it can be posted.

Thanks so much, John --JDMCMAH (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@JDMCMAH: I probably would not have deleted it but that is just me. If you disagree, you need to talk to the deleting admin, Jimfbleak (talk · contribs), and ask him to restore the article for you so you can work on it further. Generally, avoid using language that is geared towards promoting someone, like "unique voice and commanding stage presence", which are clear red flags (see WP:PEACOCK for more details). Regards SoWhy 08:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
@SoWhy: Thanks for the response and your insight. I have messaged Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) and understand your notes. I'm happy to make the suggested changes. Thank you again for your time and consideration. JDMCMAH (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 35, July – August 2019

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 35, July – August 2019

  • Wikimania
  • We're building something great, but..
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • A Wikibrarian's story
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Marcin Banot

Hi, I commented your deletion of Marcin Banot page here. Best regards --Krol111 (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Krol111: Many people have many views on YouTube, it does not mean they are particularly important. Do you have some actual reliable sources that cover him significantly? Regards SoWhy 19:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes of course, examples you can see on the article in other-language wikipedia's. Can I translate them for you? Krol111 (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@Krol111: No need, just post the links, I can use an online translator to assess them. However, remember that existence on other projects is not a guarantee that a subject will be included here because each Wikipedia has its own inclusion criteria. Regards SoWhy 06:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I understand, I explained the reason but my discussion on Marcin Banot page has been deleted idk why. Look on pl:Marcin Banot, there's a lot of links. Krol111 (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
The talk page was deleted because of WP:G8, since the article had been deleted. I looked at the links in the pl-wiki article but none of these seem to be reliable sources, but instead mostly just re-posts of his videos. Regards SoWhy 07:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
So why I became at 12 September on my discussion page message from User:Hughesdarren, that i should post there my argumentation? I think Marcin Banot's popularity doesn't make the article fulfill the WP:N criterium itself, but his work subject and achievements. Sorry, I don't like to write 2 times the same, can you restore my deleted post? You can do it as admin. Krol111 (talk) 10:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Because I would have read it if it had been posted before deletion but that's not relevant because I read it afterwards when you posted here the first time and as I said before, it contains no arguments to lead me to believe the deletion was in error, just a YouTube-link and a link to a discussion on pl-wiki. Regards SoWhy 11:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GermanJoe

Haha, L2 speakers writing articles--that is a ridiculous thought. Yes, I also want an admin who writes articles ex nihilo, but GermanJoe seems like a good candidate. For what it's worth, I wish we had admins who were fluent in Farsi, Arabic, French, Spanish, Chinese, and a handful of other languages... Drmies (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Judging by current trends of new page creations, we probably need more admins fluent in Indian languages. As for writing articles, I only discovered the joy of creating something and having your work being recognized after I became an admin, so there is still hope for GermanJoe Regards SoWhy 07:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Wow, another year already. Time flies indeed. Thanks for the message! Regards SoWhy 09:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Will you adopt me and/or answer questions about the odd situations that I seem to find?

It is afternoon here in Chicago and I wish you the best in your time zone. I have over 1000 edits easily but I still run into questions and situations that are new to me. Your offer of answering questions is very appealing because sometimes that is all that I need. Clarification of a point or a metaphysical boot in the keyboard because I have run out of boldness on an edit.
If you are willing to take me on, please let me know if you have any particular format or information that works best for you. Thank you bobdog54 (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
@Bobdog54: Thanks for your interest. I'm always happy to help if I can, so if you need anything, just ask away. Regards SoWhy 09:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Re: 3rd party Deletion

Can you take a look at the Wiki Page for Great Music Agency it is currently being nominated for deletion by a third party. Can you take a look since it has some major artists on the roster. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiukeditor (talk • contribs) 16:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Wikiukeditor: Not sure what you expect from me here. If you object to the deletion, address the problems raised in the deletion discussion, mainly the lack of coverage in reliable sources. Regards SoWhy 17:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Vimana cover.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Vimana cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't these be regular references?

Please check out the article on the Paralympic sailor Rick_Dodson. Specifically the entries for the Kenwood Cup, The Americas Cup, and The Big Apple. Those 3 table entries are linked to the same page (I think) instead of being set up as regular references with confirmed citations. Thanks bobdog54 (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Bobdog54: The "Big Apple" and "Propaganda" links should indeed be removed. The "Propaganda" is a blog link and thus likely unsuitable as a reference. The Sail World link should probably be a reference. The external link for Kenwood Cup should be removed or, if the race is notable, turned into a WP:REDLINK. Regards SoWhy 06:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Michael Carey (singer)

The Country Music News source is robots.txt'd, and I don't think that merely working with a notable producer is enough of an assertation -- WP:NOTINHERITED and all that. That said, I've moved it to AFD because a thorough search of sources yielded nothing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

By now you should know that NOTINHERITED is a notability question, not an A7 question. For A7, it's merely sufficient that the association might have plausibly led to sufficient coverage in reliable sources and that's often the case when a notable producer works with a singer. Whether that's sufficient to keep the article is indeed for AFD to decide. Regards SoWhy 07:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Revert of fimining information

I'm not really sure I understand your reasoning. Nor why you had to take it all out. I basically followed the Chernobyl mini series article which is a C class article. Help me understand why what I put in is different than what's in that article. Quotes are used frequently there. And similar information about the development is included. I want to contribute to make this article better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjr524 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mjr524: In this case, there is a main article for the source material, i.e. Good Omens. Information that is not directly relevant to the actual TV series that was produced thus does belong in that article (which is linked to from the Production section of the series and already contains most of the information). Readers reading an article about a specific series that is based on a novel usually expect the series article only to contain information pertinent to the series. As for quotes, see MOS:QUOTE which explicitly states Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be a copyright infringement. Generally speaking, you should try to imitate good articles and featured articles that went thorough and extensive review. C-class can be assigned by any editor without a review and is thus not a viable marker for quality. Last but not least, please remember to sign your posts on talk pages such as this one using ~~~~. Regards SoWhy 16:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification of the book vs. the series. And I'm really trying to understand what you are saying. Can you help me understand why the Good Omens Book Wikipedia article contains a rather "detailed" section for the Television section? It seems to me the Television section of the book article should be a few lines rather than contain information about the location etc. Shouldn't that be reverted and put in the Good Omens (TV Series). Does it truly matter if some of the same information is in both? I, personally, would not have gone to the book to find anything out about the TV series. I signed below. Hopeully it will show up this time. --Mjr524 (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The "main" article (so to speak) should, by convention, contain a short description of the spun-out material that has its own article. See Wikipedia:Summary style for details. As such, the spun-out (sub-)article should not repeat the main article but just contain those parts that are relevant to the series (in this case). If you go to the TV series article, you usually go there to find information about the TV series in particular and not the plethora of different projects that were planned but have nothing to do with the actual series. For those interested, there is a "see also" link right at the beginning of the section, which brings them to the information on the page where it's supposed to be. And those looking for an overview of the subject including all spin-offs, can read the main article and then the TV series' article if they need further information. See the guideline I linked above and WP:SPINOFF for more information that should hopefully clarify it further. If you have more questions, feel free to ask. Regards SoWhy 06:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SoWhy/Archive_30&oldid=1211816702"