Jump to content

User talk:StraussInTheHouse/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Article: Classics Department at King's

Dear SITH,

Thank you for the input you provided on my draft article on the Department of Classics at King's College London. I'd like to respectfully draw your attention to the following points and am happily open to any feedback:

I. The submission was declined due to a perceived overlap with the main university article for King's College London. I have searched through this article and was unable to find any references to the academic division in question. Indeed, the word 'classics' itself only shows up twice in the entire existing article, both in the same paragraph under a sub heading titled 'Rankings and reputation' which does not contain any information pertaining to the department, its history or its activities.

II. The only section in which I was able to find any overlap between the submission and the main university article was a small sub heading titled 'Foundation', which I included to lay some explanatory background information for the article before delving into any department-specific history. There is a possibility this section was misinterpreted as an overlap running through the entire article. Subsequent sections such as the Koraes Chair, Second World War, Modern Era, Location, Traditions and People all feature new information not currently listed anywhere on Wikipedia. These include architectural and geographical markers for the department, as well as noteworthy ties to other historical places or ideas with already existing articles (such as the Roman Baths on Strand Lane, prominent individual academics and authors from the 1800s onwards, a general context for the existence and continued endowment of the Koraes Chair, and so on). It is my confident judgement that all of this is department-specific information that is markedly unsuitable for the main university article (which appears if anything to make a point of not touching on the specifics of any individual faculty or department too much).

III. Judging by precedents set by separate articles on the Dickson Poon School of Law, Department of Philosophy, Department of War Studies, Digital Classicist and other prominent and old divisions within King's College (and the wider University of London when considering UCL departments and centres too), I believe the Classics Department has sufficient content by way of history and significance to warrant the creation of its own separate article in line with these other divisions.

IV. I have, in any case, also slightly modified the Foundation section to tailor it more specifically to the history of the Classics Department.

Please let me know if you would be happy to reconsider the submission!

Kind regards,

Wellingtonensis (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Wellingtonensis, I’m always happy to re-review drafts, however I, as with the majority of reviewers, tend not to do it straight after a message on my talk page (because of the amount of drafts I review it would mean I’d get lots of messages and it would be unfair on those who didn’t leave a message). I agree that the precedent for potential notability is there, it just needs solidifying to ensure it won’t get deleted. A reviewer’s job (aside from the obvious filtering through copyright violations etc) at AFC is to ensure that no users will be disappointed with the prospect of their article getting deleted, so something that might survive in the main space will often get rejected until we’re sure it will be able to be kept if challenged. The templates could be modified to show this, and we always appreciate feedback. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Designer Castles...

Don't worry about deleting this, Based on other discussions, I know have my doubts as well. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

ShakespeareFan00, ah shoot I didn't know you were the author. If you think it could be improved by all means, I'm always open to changing my mind. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm saying it could be deleted, as it's only got a single source, and compared to some other software titles like Podd etc it doesn't have wide coverage.
You might also want to review the following :
as to their "notability" as topics..ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Dude I'm not going on a rampage, don't worry. AFAIK, (1) could be notable per WP:NTV, it just needs sourcing, (2) is fine, (3) is notable but could probably be merged into something and I'll look at the other two in a bit. Take care, SITH (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Also The British Encyclopedia, and something that's remained un-expanded in over a decade Docking sleeve . ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:The Twilight Zone (1959 TV series) (season 1)#Requested move 6 January 2019

After closing, you forgot to move these... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

IJBall, d’oh, thanks for letting me know, done now. Best, SITH (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Shankarrao_Vyas

Hi, I have made some changes to the new article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shankarrao_Vyas.

I have added inline references, and removed all the information that isn't easily verifiable from reliable sources. Please let me know if this looks good.

Anjiy (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Anjiy thanks for your message. It's improved, perhaps ensure you place all the references inline it's not strictly required as Vyas is not alive or recently deceased but it would add clarity for the reader. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 11:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Strauss. I have now added a couple of lines about Vyas's work, using one of the references. I have also removed other references that did not add any new information, and would be viewed as less "reliable". Is the article now likely to be accepted if I submit it? Anjiy (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
@Anjiy: not sure, terms like "foremost" will need references or cutting. SITH (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, yes, I can see how that can be a problem. I just removed the adjective for now. 06:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anjiy (talk • contribs)

Volapük Wikipedia

Greetings! On Draft talk:Volapük Wikipedia, you wrote: "[...] it's clear that the Wikipedia namespace is the wrong place for it". Would you care to explain what you mean by that? In my book, draftspace is meant for articles that aren't ready for inclusion in mainspace, but to be quite frank, I can't see how that would be the case here, especially comparing it to the 124 articles that are currently in Category:Wikipedias by language. Best, —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 00:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

IJzeren Jan, if it goes anywhere it should be the mainspace. The draft space is the next best thing because we can improve it and submit it, meaning it might have a shot in he mainspace. It’s a temporary move and a relatively common procedure called incubation. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Understood, thank you very much! Cheers, —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 09:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/The Run (film) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Deprodding of Designer Castles

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Designer Castles, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the file. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Pavlor (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Deprodding of Nadine Deleury

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Nadine Deleury, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the file. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! I think since Nadine was covered in "one of the three major opera publications in the English-speaking world", among other things, she is notable. I added some content to her article to try to improve it. LovelyLillith (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Ellen Reid (American Composer)

Hi there,

You rejected my attempt to create a new, separate page for the AMERICAN composer Ellen Reid. She is a different human being than the entry for Ellen Reid the Canadian musician. https://ellenreidmusic.com/#about

Please take two minutes to read about her in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Washington Post. She is a rising star in the opera world and it's crazy she doesn't have a Wikipedia page. Thank you!

https://www.wsj.com/articles/portraits-of-pain-at-the-prototype-festival-11547070607 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/03/arts/music/classical-music-in-nyc-this-week.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/music/at-the-prototype-festival-opera-for-our-dark-time/2019/01/07/d9c0d2f2-12b1-11e9-90a8-136fa44b80ba_story.html?utm_term=.fd67abd7c596 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LA-KNOWS-THINGS-2 (talk • contribs) 08:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

LA-KNOWS-THINGS-2, Improved and accepted by Galobtter. SITH (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Please Help me on correct citation

Hi my friend. I saw your valuable contribution to Zhang Zhenghua article. May you help me to complete this article and correct existing reference problems? Please tell my why you said that those references weren't enough? Best Regards.  MrInfo2012  Talk  12:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

MrInfo2012, the issue with the references for the article were a mixture of affiliatedness, reliability and the significance of the coverage they gave. I analysed each source at the AFD. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Pon Manickavel

Hi, Draft:Pon Manickavel This article submission has been rejected for lack of notability. I would like to get clarification on this. The article is about an IPS officer(India) and who is also well known for his activities related to idols rescue against idols smuggling. Almost every Indian magazine describes his activities. he is not known for single event and not low-profile individual as per WP:BLP1E. -Neechalkaran (talk) 11:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Neechalkaran, you're welcome to improve it and then resubmit it. I rejected it was that the WP:BLP1E concerns raised by Bkissin had repeatedly not been addressed after several resubmissions. SITH (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I am not the initial submitter/article creator. If you noticed the history, I had made vast improvement than earlier submission made by other user. I don't believe the concerns were not addressed. so I am looking for the gap and fill it. let me known on what aspect improving the article helps me to get accepted -Neechalkaran (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft: Raltsevich

Hello, Would you please be so kind, to read the first footnote ("also for the subsequent content" http://www.russiadb.com ), because it includes the reference for the whole article. You can find with the same content at German, Belorusian, Russian So I don't understand, why it cannot be accepted also in English. BR CRB — Preceding unsigned comment added by CRB (talk • contribs) 13:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

CRB, the version I reviewed did not meet the minimum standard for inline citations for biographies. Please see the linked policies for more information. SITH (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
In the meantime I changed it and put the same source in some more footnotesCRB (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Thumbs up icon SITH (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
He is doing a good job by helping out users like me who have less knowledge about wikipedia .Thanks alot IshwarTalkGreen tickY 15:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Riskyishwar, no problem! Many thanks, SITH (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

DJ Ferret "notability"

With regard to the DJ Ferret article that you rejected for lack of notability, the cited appearances on Fox News and The Colbert Report would appear to satisfy Wikipedia's published criteria for notability, specifically: "12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network." Additional TV appearances can be cited if necessary but they seemed redundant at the time of writing. Further, the cited Billboard Magazine article would support "7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability."

Please advise. Thank you. 2601:47:4000:CA0F:2109:6B39:D814:BBFA (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, cite absolutely everything you can to cement notability that meets WP:RS. SITH (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Added CNN, Philadelphia Inquirer, CBS, CNBC, ABC, Consumerist, and others to support both criteria 12 and 7. Does this suffice? 2601:47:4000:CA0F:2109:6B39:D814:BBFA (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Quick look: looks better, I see you've already submitted it so a reviewer (maybe me, maybe not) will give you feedback. SITH (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you for your response. I'll create the product page instead of this. I am glad to know that you alrwady checked and it passes WPGNG. Julia Hudson 1 (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

No problem. (For the archive, this is in relation to the review of Draft:Ashley Black). SITH (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Related to page Draft:Madhu Guruswamy

Thank you for your review my page Draft:Madhu Guruswamy. I have made the sugested changes. Please let me know do i need to make any other changes . Playlikeastar (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Playlikeastar, I see you have already re-submitted it, so I or another reviewer will have a look in due course. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Request on 18:21:01, 7 January 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Galndixie



galndixie (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I wrote (or tried to write) the James Jones White article, this is my first. Should I have put each paragraph in a separate heading? Can you tell me what furthers sources I need to include? I used a book written about him by a reliable author, and legal public records displayed on ancestry.com and findagrave. I would like to get this published, and any help you could offer me would be greatly appreciated. Cindy--galndixie (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Galndixie, the main issue is the several paragraph quote, it’s probably best to remove that first. 22:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
SITH, thanks so much for your reply. That several paragraph quote is the resolution from the Board of Trustees of W&L University. Removing it would take away from the article, I think, since it tells so much of the history, character and professional life of the man. Can it not be left in, and what would be the reasoning for deleting it? I've seen other articles with similar entries included. Cindy --galndixie (talk) 05:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Galndixie, the main issue with several-paragraph quotes is it opens Wikipedia up to potential copyright lawsuits and as we're a volunteer-run community, we can't risk it, so unless the text is released under a free license such as GNU, we have a no-tolerance policy for copied content. If you see examples, please notify an administrator and they will be able to perform a revision deletion. SITH (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I must be really dense, I still don't understand this. Nearly every article I've ever read uses quotes from their sources. (granted, I haven't read them all). What is wrong with a quote, if the source is cited as it is in my and other articles? It lends credibility to and describes the subject of the article, and the source is a published book available to the public. The resolution is in the records of the University. Do I need to go back to the book and enter the sources they used as my sources? What paragraphs of that resolution could be omitted without detracting from it? Please tell me how to edit this to wiki's specifications. I really want to do this. --galndixie (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi

12-12 on both sides?[1] I count 13 on support side and 11 on oppose (one person had written "oppose" in bold in two different comments). Many of the oppose !votes were not disputing the merits of the RM but opposing the request because they claimed they recently had one. Rest of the oppose !votes were basing the argument which actually supports the WP:COMMONNAME. I mean you have to read the "oppose" !votes carefully because even the last 3 ones,[2][3][4] are supporting the argument which was made in my proposal. Reliable sources do call it "Killing" not "Assassination", which was still just a mere speculation.

It is not even about vote-count but strength of the argument. Can you describe which oppose !vote was good enough to override WP:COMMONNAME? Rzvas (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey Rzvas, thanks for your message. I know how consensus works, I said my tally, that twenty-four !votes. By using !vote, I am implying that I have read the arguments because polling isn't a substitute for discussion. However, a rough head count, especially when both sides are using the same policy to support different sides with arguments of equal strength, can be helpful. You cite Panam2014's oppose as supporting the argument [...] in [your] proposal but it isn't. It's opposing the move and applying the same logic but coming to a different conclusion. There is an argument to be made, and was extensively made at the aforementioned discussion, that WP:COMMONNAME should also consider the reliability of the sources. If you don't like the closure, feel free to take it to move review, but I have given an in-depth explanation supporting the closure so I would advise you to simply wait for a month or so and see if your argument has been strengthened in the meantime. SITH (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi StraussInTheHouse, you may have noticed that a large number of editors viewed this RM nomination as WP:DISRUPTIVE since there had previously been two separate RM discussions which involved a large number of editors who vigorously debated the proposed titles. I agree with your assessment that if The facts change or new facts come to light then it may be reasonable to relist this RM for more discussion. Absent that, if this RM is being constantly relisted without a significant change in the underlying facts of the article, it will be difficult to defend and may invite discretionary sanctions for disruptive editing since a large number of editors view this latest RM as such. Your advice to wait until there is some factual basis for reopening an RM discussion is reasonable and prudent. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

About reviewing of Draft "Maskoor Ahmad Usmani"

Hi As per the suggestions provided by you for the draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Maskoor_Ahmad_Usmani I have tried to follow your instruction and Wikipedia guideline for further editing, After the draft was declined by you on 3rd January 2018. Any peacock terms, adjective or any word which seems to be promotion or advertisement of the subject has been omitted. The draft has been edited in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Kindly re-review the draft as soon as possible and guide If any further improvement is needed in the draft. Your suggestion means a lot for creating a good article.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marghoob2018 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Marghoob2018, no problem! I see you have re-submitted the draft so it will be looked at in due course. As per my FAQ page, I can't expedite a review based on a talk page message. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Question about citations

Hi This is a question about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:S.7000-A_Real_Property_Tax_Law_in_New_York_State

Can you help with the steps needed to publish.

This article has many citations to the New York Times.

There are some tax history tables that that take up some space and are very important to show the history that has occurred over the past 40 years.

The citations for the tables are at the beginning and end.

Every word of this article is cited and based on published sources.

Any help would be appreciated.

Also, I've updated to give even more information and references.

Thanks, Ryozzo (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Lips (New Zealand band)

Hi I've made some changes to the Draft:Lips (New Zealand band) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lips_(New_Zealand_band), making the tone more encyclopedic and neutral. Would love your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwisu (talk • contribs) 13:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Move review for Talk:CCTV New Year's Gala#Requested move 29 December 2018

The requested move of the article "CCTV New Year's Gala" released on 29 December 2018 was closed too speedily. There is no enough discussion to the requested move. In addition, many page-moved discussion released near 29 December 2018 are relisted in recent days, like "Talk:Auschwitz concentration camp#Requested move 29 December 2018", in order to attract other users to make their comments there. So can you reopen and relist the page-moved discussion of the article "CCTV New Year's Gala" in order to get enough discussion? Thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.113.78.173 (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm struggling to see a concrete reason to relist this, however I am open to feedback, so I'm pinging Andrewa and Dekimasu, two uninvolved administrators who are experienced at requested moves to give me a review on whether the close was valid or not. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I would have closed the discussion with the same result, and I almost wrote a preemptive endorsement of the close; it's usually not very productive to relist discussions to find consensus after there is any evidence of canvassing. I'd expect the closure to be endorsed if the issue goes to move review, although arguably it may have been better to allow an administrator to close since this might have involved disallowing or disregarding certain !votes. Dekimasuよ! 18:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I agree it's a good close, with the same reservation that in difficult closes such as this we do currently prefer admin closes. But I'll qualify that in two ways... firstly a page mover, like any closer, is expected to disallow !votes that do not represent valid contributions to the consensus building process, and secondly, IMHO it would actually be better to prefer that these difficult ones were done by page movers, as they are RM specialists and on average do a better job at them than we admins. But that last is a radical opinion I admit, and does not itself have consensus support at this stage. Andrewa (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Why, Andrewa! That IS a radical take that I've never read before, probably because it's true but nobody wanted to say it. Fact is, there are some admins who are so much better at closing discussions, RM or otherwise, than some page movers, and there are some page movers and even non-admin, non-page-mover editors who are so much better than some admins, dependent in good deal upon the experience level. So for whatever it's worth, if 2 can constitute a consensus, then you've got it, budd! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  17:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Paine. One problem is that while page movers do a very good job on average, their instructions seem to leave something to be desired (they are relatively new after all) and this leads to some glitches. See wt:page mover#Talk page redirects (warning... long convoluted discussion). So there's some work to do before proposing this IMO. Andrewa (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Apologies to SITH for leaving Earth and taking this thread to Venus. It does appear that there is good reason to suspect that the closing instructions could be made clearer. In my opinion, all that is needed is written at WP:RMCI#Fixing redirects, and any editor that does not fix a broken, red-linked talk page after a page move violates that particular instruction. Maybe that is the instruction that needs to be made clearer? Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  02:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
No problem! I did write something on this on my old account (Wikipedia:Simple RM closing instructions). RMs are unlike AfDs in that there are often alternative proposals so a script to close and move, especially as there’s a lot of post-move cleanup, really are best done manually. SITH (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
To editor Andrewa: I have made the clarification to the clean up instructions at WP:RMCI#Fixing redirects.Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  18:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks both for your input. SITH (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • However, I disagree with the opinions proposed by the two administrators. Although it is reported that there is convassing in the page-moved discission by someone who opposed the page-moved proposal, and the supporters don't give further reasons, I still think it is unfair, unjust and unreasonable to close the page-moved discussion I mentioned so speedily by only hearing the report made by the opposer of the page-moved proposal. The behaviour done by the supporters is individual, and other users isn't likely to do it again. I still think we should reopen and relist the page-moved discussion I mentioned in order to attract other users to make their comments there. Otherwise, it is unfair, unjust and unreasonable to the users who never comment there, and it isn't good to make better consensus. Please welcome more administrators who don't involve the page-moved discussion I mentioned and this move review to discuss whether we should reopen and relist the page-moved discussion I mentioned. Thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.113.78.173 (talk) 07:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't feel a relist is justified. You can lodge an appeal at WP:MOVEREVIEW. SITH (talk) 09:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that would be the next step, 123.113.78.173 having now discussed the close with the closer, as described as step 1 at Wikipedia:Move review#Steps to list a new review request. Andrewa (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
The MR was raised and closed endorsing the RM close. SPI investigations are continuing. Andrewa (talk) 07:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Kildin Sami orthography

Hello StraussInTheHouse, I suggest reopening the move discussion you closed as simply "no consensus" at Talk:Kildin Sami orthography and/or adding more discussion to the close. This is a complicated case that requires more cleanup, because there were a large number of associated moves performed just before the opening of this request that would need to be reverted in the event of "no consensus." Since it does not appear that you determined which or processed these after the close, please consider letting the request move into the backlog naturally until someone is able to take care of it. Dekimasuよ! 19:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dekimasu, I closed it as no consensus because it'd already been relisted twice and hadn't received any more input since the last relist but I agree that it's a complicated one so I'll revert and leave it for someone else to give it another look. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. It's not that I necessarily disagree with your reading of the discussion, which has died out as you said, just that a lot of resulting work needs to be done. Dekimasuよ! 19:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Deleted article

Dear administrator,

I'm writing in regard of the article of "The Baltic Center for Investigative Journalism Re:Baltica" I created today. Do to the copyrights it’s deleted. I assume that it's because of my lack of experience.

I work for Re:Baltica and it was my responsibility to make Wikipedia article about organization. Duo to the fact that it's important and necessary for media organization to have Wikipedia page to prove credibility on Facebook posts.

I spent 9 hours today to make this article and for sure I used information from Re:Baltica webpage, because that information also was added and created by me. It's a basic information about Re:Baltica which we use in all our accounts - these are facts and it’s almost impossible to put them different in my own words.

I understand that I could quote them, but it would not look appropriate, since this article has been made as a basic information about media. Would it be possible to restore the page, so I could prevent the mistakes? I've been working on this article all Sunday and tomorrow I must show the result of my work to colleagues - I at least need to have the draft, unpublished material to show them.

I really hope that it's possible to restore the article and I'll be allowed to make changes. Best regards, Liene Sandalane

Liene Sandalane (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Liene Sandalane, the rules on copyright apply to experienced users too, it's one of the things we just can't compromise on because of legal reasons. The third line of your message strongly implies that you are getting paid to edit Wikipedia, please see WP:PAYDISCLOSE, per the Terms of Use you must declare this. Please note that more than just Facebook posts and affiliated sources are needed for an article about a company to be considered notable, but first and foremost we simply cannot accept content copied from elsewhere unless it is released under a GNU license. I am not an administrator, but I doubt an administrator will reinstate a copyright violation. Pinging RHaworth for input (page link: User:Liene Sandalane/sandbox). Thanks, SITH (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

How To Improve The Francis Wolf Page

Hello Wiki Gurus,

I’m a newbie and I have just got one of my page not accepted.

Can I know how I can improve the page for it to be more acceptable?

Any feedback would be very much appreciated.

Thank you Cookiss99 (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Cookiss99

Thanks

I appreciated your attempt to invite those who hadn't explained their reasons for supporting the move(s) on the chimpanzee article(s) to do so, and was glad to have the opportunity to elucidate mine. Sorry you got such an abusive response about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genesyz (talk • contribs) 16:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Non-admin close of controversial RM

Please reopen the Raul Julia RM and leave it for an admin to close. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, Strauss is blocked at the moment and will not likely be back immediately to do it. Perhaps a move review will be apt? (talk page stalker)-- Flooded with them hundreds 18:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
A move review will likely just turn into a regurgitation of why Puerto Ricans should have English names. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I looked at reopening this as an uninvolved admin, and was a bit surprised at what I found. Have a look.

Just to clarify, I'm assuming this is about Talk:Raul Julia#Requested move 8 December 2018. Ah yes, the diacritic conversation again!

I did a quick scan of just the oppose !votes (not the support or the discussion) and based just on that scan would feel justified in discarding each and every one of them were I the closer. (I would need to also look at the sometimes lengthy discussion of course, in case some valid point were to have been made there.) The requester here of the reopen, for example, said Puerto Rico is Spanish speaking, so are all the BLP articles. [5] (And I note no edit summary, which is unlike them and made the diff hard to find, but that's a minor point.) But WP:BLP doesn't seem relevant, nor does Spanish. Am I missing something?

And I find a similar lack of valid rationale in every one of the oppose !votes, as I said above, which was enough for me to abandon the plan to immediately reopen, and doesn't look too promising for a move review either

In view of all this and SITH's planned return, In ictu oculi, you waited almost a fortnight after the close before coming here, are you happy to now wait for SITH's return? (And sorry for the multiple pings.) Andrewa (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello StraussInTheHouse! Your replacement external link in this 2019-01-11 edit is broken. Did the libretto text file not get transferred from the boisestate site to the gsarchive one? Here is the most recent working archive of that boisestate page. Cheers! -- ToE 19:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Post-move cleanup

Tnank you for your close. After moves that involve a change in topic structure (typically when the move involves moving a dab page to or from a primary title), it's usually a good idea to fix any redirects (so they point to the correct article) or links from dab pages or hatnotes. At the minimum, the link on a dab page should be updated, so that we don't have situations like this, where the article previously at the primary title has all of a sudden become inaccessible. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Uanfala, yarp, my bad, now fixed the disambiguator; going to tidy up the hatnote in a mo. SITH (talk) 09:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

New article about YaHalla

As per your comments i have replaced the content. Kindly review it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameelixe (talk • contribs) 06:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Jameelixe, I or another reviewer will review it in due course, please see the infobox on WP:PAFC for the estimated maximum waiting time. SITH (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Back

Hello all, I'm back now. I forgot to deactivate the archival bot before I left, so I shall answer the messages which have since been archived here and if further discussion is needed, please create a new section.

It should not have been closed by a non-admin, you can still reopen it. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
In ictu oculi, the page mover policy allows page movers to close requested move discussions and determine consensus. If you give me a reason other than my non-administrator status, especially concerning why you think my determination of consensus was incorrect, I would be more than happy to re-open it. If you can't do that, I see no valid reason on why my close was in error, so you will have to take it to move review in that case. SITH (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps it's more the issue that it was a contentious move that did not have consensus, and departs from en.wp practice with Puerto Rico bios. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
In ictu oculi, I've started a move review as a pro forma, please see Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 February for more details. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Archived three discussions

Extended content

Block

I'm tired. Please block me. I don't want to edit anymore. I'm tired. Jaed Ali (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Jaed Ali, I can't block you, I'm not an administrator. I have added the {{admin help}} template here so an administrator can oblige. Thanks, SITH (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Please! Now I'm tired. May be I'll stop editing for life time. Please do something for blocking me. I'm tired. Ah!-Jaed Ali — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaed Ali (talk • contribs)
I do not have that technical capability. SITH (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Jaed Ali, please note that your request to be blocked isn't guaranteed to be accepted. SITH (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I am mentally tired and I always vandalise when I am in stress. Please forgive me and do something for my block.- Jaed Ali — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaed Ali (talk • contribs) 19:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Let me see if I can explain this using song lyrics.
If you can name them without clicking the links, you know your stuff.
SITH (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Jaed Ali - You need to take responsibility for yourself and behave like a reasonable person, dude... Your request here is both ridiculous and silly; if you're feeling frustrated, tired, angry, or stressed about something related to Wikipedia, you need to resolve this by making yourself take a break, step away from the project, and doing what you need to do in order to calm yourself and set these thoughts and feelings aside so that you return and contribute positively to the project. Blocks are not meant to be handed out every time someone becomes frustrated or angry over something. They're to be used to technically prevent accounts and IP users from editing in order to protect the project, it's processes, and the community from disruption, damage, and harm, and to prevent further problems from occurring. Take a break, get your thoughts and emotions worked out, get assistance and input from other users regarding the situation if you need it, and work the problem civilly and appropriately so that it gets resolved. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Strauss is right. Sabah Azman Nahean (talk) 11:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Sabah Azman Nahean - Please don't involve yourself in matters that (apparently) have nothing to do with you. Thanks - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Error

Hi! It's me, Sabah Azman Nahean II, not SAN aka Jaed Ali, new Wikipedia user! I'm not here for greeting mainly. I came here for inform you that there is a error in Lalmonirhat District page. It'll be 'Rangpur' instead of 'Ranpur' and 'Cooch Behar' instead of 'Kochbihar'. Hope you understand that and as soon as possible you will take a very important step. Sabah Azman Nahean (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

False Information

Mr. Strauss, I want to tell you you that Jaed Ali has gave a false information. Because in Google, just I am known as both Javed Ali and Sabah Azman Nahean. Name of both of us are same, that's why he is misusing it. Please take a step!!!!! Sabah Azman Nahean (talk) 11:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Sabah Azman Nahean - Can you please explain exactly what you're talking about? Why, in your first edits to Wikipedia, are you leaving messages here and about a Wikipedia user you (supposedly) don't even know? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:5050x2020

Hi StraussInThe House! Thanks for reading the article I submitted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:5050x2020). Would it be possible to get some specific feedback to improve it so it can get approved?

I modelled the formatting of the article on articles about similar social movements that straddle the social media and irl worlds, and describe impactful international campaigns for social change (MeToo, the Ice Bucket Challenge, YesAllWomen etc).

The note says that articles “should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources”. The article contains 40+ references, sourced only from leading media outlets (such as the New York Times, the LA Times, The Guardian, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter), and government agencies in several countries.

The note also mentions refraining from “peacock language”. Would you mind clarifying and specifying what should be edited? The article currently doesn’t contain any adjectives or descriptive terms. It does not include any hyperbolic terms such as “leading”, “major”, “renowned”, etc, and no flowery language. It simply reports facts in a neutral tone, all backed up with independent, published sources.

I've read your FAQ, and don't see that it has the issues you list, but clearly you're of a different opinion, so I'd be grateful to hear where you think it goes wrong.

Any help and guidance would be appreciated. Thanks! Petra PetraPetraK (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi PetraPetraK, thanks for your message! Social activist movements are very tricky to write about, but, for example, in the lead the phrase inspire and empower is used. While that may indeed be its purpose, we try and write in a neutral style using less loaded words. Of course, social activist movements are made to right great wrongs but we have to try and just document it impartially. Parts of the draft, that included, read a little bit like a mission statement. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Daniel Pinder Wiki Article

Hello, I have added Citations needed for article on actor Daniel Pinder page.

Would love to get your guidance and I feel page statements are very supported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:441:457F:E92D:874:71AB:237E:DDAC (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi 2601:441:457F:E92D:874:71AB:237E:DDAC, at a first glance they look better cited now, but the version I declined had fewer citations. Of course, the quality of the citations, now they are present, will be assessed by a reviewer. I see you have already submitted it, so let's see what the next reviewer says. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

submission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Divya_Dhayal

Hello StraussInThe House! Thanks for your feedback on my submission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Divya_Dhayal). I have made the changes as per your guidance. Can the page be published now? Your help is highly appreciated! Thanks a ton! Sangsa (talk) 07:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Frewitt

Hello StraussInTheHouse. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Frewitt, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Subject might be important/significant (see also Google News/Books hits for this subject) / use WP:PROD or WP:AFD instead to allow other editors to participate in this decision. Thank you. SoWhy 13:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Netmorf

Hello StraussInTheHouse. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Netmorf, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Quite a number of GBooks hits in addition to the refs in the article indicates that significance might exist but sources might be offline. Thank you. SoWhy 13:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Re

Hello, this was not an article that I created, I purely created a redirect to Albanian diaspora. As it would appear from the history, an anonymous user created the page. I'm just clarifying because I do not have any opinion in this discussion, and I do not have a particular opinion on what should happen to the page. Jerome501 (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jerome501, thanks for letting me know, the page curation tool which I was using to review the article automatically informs the page creator. Thanks, SITH (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Certified General Accountants Association of British Columbia

Hello StraussInTheHouse, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Certified General Accountants Association of British Columbia, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Eastmain, thank you for notifying me, I've PROD-ed it. SITH (talk) 10:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Festicket

Hey there - thanks for your help and comments on the Festicket draft, it is much appreciated. Do you think the extra references I have added are enough to prove notability for the article? Some of the articles you linked to were too promotional in my opinion to add in as extra references, but I did manage to add in a few that were factual and hopefully notable enough. Thanks again. --Susannaclarepr (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Susannaclarepr, thanks for your message. If you've added the sources I identified as giving significant coverage, I would probably say the requisite depth has been satisfied, however, another reviewer, CNMall41 has identified it as borderline, so I will abstain from reviewing the draft and await a third opinion. Regards, SITH (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

RM closure

Thanks for the snow closure at the 2019 Cricket World Cup RM. As an univolved editor, please could you take a look at this similar case, which was started by the same IP editor. Many thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Lugnuts, no problem, I've also determined that to be a snow case (diff). Best, SITH (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Camp Farband

Hi, thank you for reviewing my draft. Regarding your rejection due to source concerns in the Camp Farband draft, are you concerned about the reliability of the Detroit Jewish News itself, or the fact that the archives are photographic rather than digitized text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DawnBreaksOverMarblehead (talk • contribs) 14:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

DawnBreaksOverMarblehead, hi, no problem. While unfamiliar with it, a quick look suggests that DJN is a reliable source, however the linked sources are essentially primary sources which have been preserved by a news organisation. This makes them, while interesting and not necessarily detrimental to the article, less useful for establishing notability as secondary sources tend to offer a lasting view. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Reference desk

Hi. Why did you revert my question about foreign embassies in Welthauptstadt Germania? --79.32.129.66 (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Apologies, we've had a lot of anti-Semitic trolling by a user who specifically targets the Reference Desk pages, so I saw "Hitler" and "Reference Desk" and went on autopilot. I've reinstated your question and struck the user talk page warning. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank You for Reviewing My Article 'Darna Mana Hai'

Hello,

Dear Mr. SITH,

Firstly much apologies for reaching out to you late, so many thanks for reviewing my article, can you please give it a look back again, as I have made it corrected once again. This time I have really tried my level best to correct the submitted errors provided by you. Hope you will find it okay, OR Also Please do let me know for any further changes if needed.

Thanks n Regards(~~SB~~ 14:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saadullah Bhatti (talk • contribs)

Saadullah Bhatti, if you're referring to Draft:Darna Mana Hai (TV series), no problem, I see you have resubmitted it so myself or another reviewer will be with it shortly. SITH (talk) 09:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Khwaja Ahrar

Hey Strauss

I have added so many reliable references from established university professors and research articles. What else should I put up ? Ajmal (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

On IRC. SITH (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Bare Metal Server Page

Hello,

I am not vandalizing anything. I was told by MrOllie that Wikipedia is a big place with a lot to do, and not enough volunteers to do the work. So I shouldn't assume that the existence of badly sourced stuff that no one else has noticed yet means that he endorse it or that I should emulate it. I did some relevant changes to a certain wiki page (private loans) and I was also told that Wikipedia generally does not source information about products to the companies that are marketing those same products. So, on the bare metal server wiki page Rackspace is basically promoting their services because they offer bare metal servers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.106.124.191 (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Undone. My apologies. SITH (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Drafts cancellation.

Please delete all my drafts, if possible ("Seminar on Youth", "The Standard Life of a Temporary Pantyhose Salesman", " Sodomies in Elevenpoint" and "Uses and Abuses" of the same author) as I'm no longer interested in contributing to the English version of Wikipedia. Thank you. -- 109.235.153.213 (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done. SITH (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Cauley Woodrow

<ref>https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/martin-patching/profil/spieler/482953<ref>

'further information' section links Martin Patching to Cauley Woodrow - father and son. Cauley dropped the latter of his surname after the breakdown in relationship in his mother and father - also mentioned here: <ref>http://www.wolvesheroes.com/2014/08/19/not-a-patch-on-the-old-man-or-is-he/<ref> 86.3.127.76 (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

A reliable citation is needed in that case per WP:BLP. SITH (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:APM Monaco

Hi! I've declined your speedy nomination of this, as the four sources you listed all related to the Iranian poet Majid Naficy, and I imagine there's been some mix-up? Did you intend to nominate Draft:Majid Naficy for speedy deletion, or were there other sources that you'd meant to list in relation to APM Monaco? Or both of the above? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Justlettersandnumbers, yep, that's a multi-tab editing error I think. I plead the oops defence. Thanks for letting me know! SITH (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding decline of draft Mancherial revenue division

Hi may I know the areas that made you to decline the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jafarpasha77 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Jafarpasha77, I assume you're referring to Draft:Mancherial Revenue Division. The issue here is that there is insufficient context for the average reader to identify what the draft is actually about. You can rectify this by adding more verified description in the lead. You can read more about writing better articles here. Furthermore, you'll probably want to cite more significant coverage from independent, reliable sources to prove what you're writing about is notable. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

High Scope

Hi, you've tagged a number of revisions to HighScope for revdel. I'm not sure there is an issue as the page you gave as being the source of the material is a mirror of Wikipedia so it's that site copying Wikipedia not the other way round. If I've missed something please let me know and I'll take another look. Thanks. Nthep (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Nthep, thanks for letting me know, I've left a message on Earwig's talk page with regards to getting it added to the ignore list. SITH (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Nthep, was this another mirror? If not, it still requires revdel. Thanks, SITH (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
there was a shedload of copyvios in that article but I couldn't find the text you marked as you hadn't specified which revision the text first appeared in. Nthep (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Nthep, re HighScope, I've thoroughly checked and I agree, it's an un-added mirror. Re Coca-Cola India, someone added a copyvio which was then mirrored on an un-added mirror, so I've used WikiBlame in conjunction with Earwig's tool and added the range to the template. SITH (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

About submission declined- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Adeniji_Kazeem

Hello Strauss, I have the below page that I'm working on declined, kindly help with advice on how to resolve the issues..please.

Regards,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Adeniji_Kazeem — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musbaunow (talk • contribs) 14:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Musbaunow, the education part is entirely unreferenced. For living people and recently deceased people, we require all claims to be sourced with a reliable inline citation. SITH (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much Strauss, Ok so, I have cut alltogether, the Early life and Education to a section now Biography section, kindly advice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Adeniji_Kazeem enownow 10:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musbaunow (talk • contribs)
Just amalgamating the sections doesn't mean you can get away with not referencing them, we need inline citations that refer to reliable sources so we can verify the claims. SITH (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

about declined draft: Apeiron - Research and Publishing Institute for Security and Defence Studies

Hi StraussInTheHouse Thanks for the review and for your tips. I've applied changes. Need to explain something, though. You've pointed the wiki page explaining the difference between a bulleted list and prose (regarding the incorrect use of the bullet points, I suppose). But I used the bullet points as requested by AngusWOOF: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AngusWOOF#about_the_declined_article:_Apeiron_-_Research_and_Publishing_Institute_for_Security_and_Defence_Studies

"Jakub Dusza, I would simplify the list of journals to a bullet list with single paragraph for each journal. I would also find more sources that show the journals are notable per WP:NJOURNAL and highlight that in the comments. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)"

Regards Jakub Dusza (talk) 10:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Jakub Dusza, apologies, I'm pinging AngusWOOF for input on the question of prose v.s. bullet points. That alone would not be grounds to reject it, the key issue was with NPOV compliance. SITH (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
No worries :) Thanks for response. And beside the bullet points I've rewrited and shortened the article. So I hope is now complied with NPOV. cheers Jakub Dusza (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
No problem, I see you've resubmitted it, so let's see what the next reviewer says! SITH (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I just want to make sure that the article is waiting for the review. It's been several days since last submission and the last few times it was checked almost instantly. So I just want to make sure it didn't stuck somewhere in-between :)
Jakub Dusza (talk) 11:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Jakub Dusza I can confirm that it has been submitted. It can take anywhere between the same day and six weeks to complete, judging by the current backlog size. SITH (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Jakub Dusza (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Respond in 3/4 time

Yeah, that Marie von Erody article I submitted [6] was a straight up translation of the wiki.de article on the subject. I didn't do anything to it at all. The subject is notable; in that she provided Beethoven a house, they lived together and the place is now a Beethoven museum. What the article needs: is to have the citations formatted against the text (something the de. editors don't have to do, apparently...) or find the "books" that have been cited and do it myself (unlikely, even though I have some facility with the German language).

I might find something in Beethoven letters published online by the Gutenberg society, but... Have you ever read Beethoven's letters? What a total boring, suck-up he was. Glad he spent more time lashing notes to a page. Anyways, back burner stuff for me. Thanks for the time you spent looking at it. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hamster Sandwich, I have! And no problem, feel free to resubmit once the sourcing's fixed SITH (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of DXPloit

Hi Strauss, My article was proposed for deletion, can you please revert it back so that I move that to a draft and make changes appropriately, and can you guide me how do I present my company's article in Wikipedia. this is the first article which I am doing. Kindly help me in contributing towards wiki. DXploit please help me with examples for notability I'm kind of confused with the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharani~enwiki (talk • contribs)

Pinging Enterprisey as the deleting admin as I can't see the content anymore. Thanks, SITH (talk) 10:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I have emailed you a copy. I think the content falls under G11, so it would be deleted again if I put it in your userspace. And thanks for the ping, Strauss! Enterprisey (talk!) 03:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Joshua Epstein, violinist

Dear Strauss in the House, Welcome back! I have worked on the article Joshua Epstein (violinist) and was hoping you could look it over when you have a chance and maybe remove the tags if the first two sections conform to the citation guidelines now. Many thanks! Hettie.epstein (talk) 11:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hettie.epstein, certainly, I'm just reviewing a couple of articles and I'll then take a look. Thanks, SITH (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Hettie.epstein, I've now had a look, unfortunately, as the main contributor to the page (yourself) has a personal connection with Joshua Epstein, there's a tad of original research synthesisised from primary sources. I wouldn't feel comfortable removing the tags without a second opinion, perhaps you could crosspost this to the Help Desk or the Teahouse? Many thanks, SITH (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok, will do. Thank you!Hettie.epstein (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Kaleeswaram Raj

Please see to the draft under same name which you recently reviewed. The inline citations have been included. Uoouaz (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kaleeswaram_Raj Uoouaz (talk) 10:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Uoouaz, I don't expedite reviews based on talk page messages, if I did I'd have at least 1,900 messages in a day. I see you have resubmitted it so let's see what the next reviewer says. SITH (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft Rejected

Hello!

My draft was rejected and I did not know if it's because the tone of voice because all the written story is genuinely created and not copied.

Could you please help me mark the issue so I redraft it?

Thank you! NicoleKhaw (talk) 08:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi NicoleKhaw. I'm assuming this is about Draft:Ziad Alexandre Hayek. I think the copyright issues have been resolved, however I see that you have since re-submitted it and it was declined by RoySmith on the grounds of promotionalism. Do you happen to known Hayek, because a studio portrait marked as "own work" means you'll have to have been in close contact with both him and a photo studio at the same time, which would not happen due to happenstance? Many thanks, SITH (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Clarification regarding draft submission of "Coat of arms of Austria-Hungary"

Hi there.

Back in September I began work on an article (about the coat of arms of the Austrian Empire) in my personal sandbox, specifically Alphathon/sandbox2, then got distracted by real life and left it in an incomplete state. I just went back to it today to do some more to it and noticed that someone (user Aleguez70, who has no other edits on any MediaWiki project as far as I can tell – they may have registered purely to submit my sandboxed page) had, for whatever reason, decided to submit it by adding the {{submit}} template. I have no idea who they are, why they did or how they found the page (I will be asking them). Then user Robert McClenon moved the page to the drafts namespace as it is the "Preferred location for AfC submissions" under the name Draft: Coat of Arms of Austria-Hungary (which is, incidentally, incorrect, as the text talks about the arms of the pre-compromise Austrian Empire, not Austria-Hungary). Then, user Abelmoschus Esculentus declined it as an article with that name already existed in the main namespace, then reverted their declination one minute later without explanation. Finally, about a month later (a little over a day ago as I type this), you declined it again for the same reason.

Anyway, all the stuff about it being declined is really neither here nor there, as it was mislabelled, incomplete and perhaps a bit "essay-like" anyway. (Even given the mislabelling I have no real issue with it being merged into Coat of arms of Austria-Hungary once it is finished instead of having its own article if that is preferable.) What I want to do is move the page back to my sandbox (edit history and all, at least up to my last edit) until I have finished working on it. I am happy to do this myself; however, I have never used the draft feature/namespace before and don't really know the rules, how it works etc and didn't want to accidentally break any rules or step on anyone's toes. Since you clearly do know how it all works I thought you might be able to help. I suppose I'm sort of asking permission to move it back and checking if there's anything else I need to do (would I need to leave a redirect etc). If all else fails I can always just copy the contents back in, but I'd rather keep the edit history intact.

P.S. Jimmy is very distracting!

Thanks, Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit: I just thought you should know that I have also contacted Abelmoschus Esculentus about this and have now asked Aleguez70 why they submitted it in the first place. Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ (talk) 09:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Alphathon, I've put it back where it came from for you. Cheers :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Alphathon, Premeditated Chaos has sorted it. With regards to Jimmy, I'm looking into making him peek out more slowly so it's not as distracting but that'll be a side project! In the meantime, I've disabled him. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

LCMS moves

Thank you for all those LCMS moves. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Shhhnotsoloud, no problem! Best, SITH (talk) 09:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft Declined

Can you please tell me what's the mistake in the article that I submitted ? And also can you please tell me what should I do to clear that mistake ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allah-is-my-life (talk • contribs) 06:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Allah-is-my-life, the draft you're referring to, Draft:Sayyid Ahamed Muhyuddeen Noorishah Sani Jeelani, is about a living person. As such, we require inline citations. Please see referencing for beginners to learn how to do this. SITH (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Why Lazy_Lion_(mascot) contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia?

Hello SITH,

May i know why my article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lazy_Lion_(mascot)) contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia?

Adbrownies (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Adbrownies, per the link in the decline template, specifically the second section, your draft is not neutral. It's structured like a PowerPoint and worded like an advert. You had resubmitted it three times without any improvement in the areas the previous reviewers had given you hints on, so if you do plan on resubmitting, please ensure you do so this time, otherwise it is highly likely that a reviewer will nominate it for deletion. SITH (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

To edit draft Davit Gasparyan

Hello, I have a draft by the name of Davit Gasparyan. There is a wikipedia page in Armenian language for the person Davit Gasparyan։ URL: https://hy.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D4%B4%D5%A1%D5%BE%D5%AB%D5%A9_%D4%B3%D5%A1%D5%BD%D5%BA%D5%A1%D6%80%D5%B5%D5%A1%D5%B6 All I'm doing is to translate same text and using same references. I do not know how to do this to be approved. please help me with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armbandari (talk • contribs) 11:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Sir, there are no other references available to make this page active, i have a few newspaper cuttings, which was rejected by Wikipedia Editor earlier.. could please lend your advice. Thanks a lot for your support, guidance and constant tips..!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anand Rao Pawar Kumar (talk • contribs) 11:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Anand Rao Pawar Kumar, I assume you're referring to Draft:Sri Sankara Matrimony. All Wikipedias are meant to strive for reliable sourcing in BLPs; just because one page on one Wikipedia falls short of providing reliable sources doesn't mean it gets a free pass on others. All you've cited is YouTube - you mentioned newspaper cuttings - these are much better than citing YouTube videos, please see Template:Cite news for instructions on how to cite newspapers. SITH (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Make...

Hi. Wondering why you relisted 'Make America Great Again', as there seems a clear no consensus to change the title and sources are consistent in upper casing it. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Randy Kryn, thanks for your message. I agree it's a clear no consensus at the moment but consensus was by no means against the move; the debate of capitals v.s. RS common name is probably one that it'd be useful to get a clearer consensus on, especially in a controversial area, so I judged a relist to be the better option. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Re: Declined Catz 'n Dogz

Hi StraussInTheHouse, Thank you for reviewing the page I edited, Catz 'n Dogz. I'm having trouble deciphering your feedback that accompanies the denial of the page. How can I move forward if the denial is "procedural"? I don't understand the Miscellany for Deletion designation, as the page has been significantly edited since the last draft was submitted. I would appreciate some real feedback about the denial of this page, please! Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brookiebabie (talk • contribs) 10:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Brookiebabie, thanks for your question. A procedural decline means that the draft has been submitted when it shouldn’t have been due to an active discussion taking place about the draft’s existence. I was not the user who sent the draft to MfD, but you can comment on the page by clicking the link on the MfD template which will take you straight to the discussion. Thanks, SITH (talk) 11:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

As to the declined article of 'Jean d'Aspremont'

Hi StraussInTheHouse, I have implemented your comment 'Early life and education entirely unsourced, the majority of claims in Academic career are unsourced (paragraph starting "He produced extensively")' by putting reference to every sentence! I hope, and I am wondering if this is what your comment meant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firebolt2030 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Firebolt2030, excellent improvements, that’s exactly what I was after. I or another reviewer will take a look at it in more depth in due course. SITH (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:StraussInTheHouse/Archive_2&oldid=1073319666"