Esta es mi página de discusión. Por favor, añada los mensajes nuevos al final de la página. Por favor, firme todos los mensajes con cuatro tildes (como este ~~~~). Haga clic aquí para iniciar un nuevo tema. DES (discusión) 03:48 7 sep 2005 (UTC) [ responder ]
Generalmente conservaré todos los comentarios, positivos o negativos, y los archivaré cuando la página se haga demasiado grande. Pero puedo optar por eliminar vandalismo o tonterías. Generalmente preferiría que otros editores no eliminen nada de mi página de discusión. Gracias por comunicarse conmigo. DES (discusión) 03:48 7 sep 2005 (UTC) [ responder ]
Cualquier eliminación de contenido de mi página de discusión puede revertirse mediante una reversión con o sin previo aviso. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 14:11 23 ene 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Puedo responder en tu página de discusión o debajo de tu comentario aquí. Si respondo aquí te notificaré con una plantilla {{ talkback }} , o un ping, o ambos, a menos que me hayas pedido que no lo haga, o hayas pedido a los editores en general que no te lo notifiquen (como hacen algunos editores). DES (discusión) 21:11 22 ene 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Si he dejado un comentario en tu página de discusión, o en la página de discusión de un artículo, puedes responder donde dejé el comentario, o aquí. Si respondes donde dejé el comentario, para mantener el hilo unido, enviarme una nota o colocar una plantilla {{ talkback }} o {{ tb }} en esta página, o enviarme un mensaje incluyéndolo en un comentario firmado en la página de discusión probablemente significará que veo tu comentario y respondo antes. Por favor, considera hacerlo. DES (discusión) 00:23 25 feb 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]{{U|DESiegel}}
Por favor, no edite la plantilla de encabezado (Usuario:DESiegel/TPHdr) que se utiliza para mostrar estas secciones de encabezado de la página de discusión a menos que haya un problema con ella; esa plantilla no es un buen lugar para dejarme mensajes. DES (discusión) 21:11 22 ene 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Archivo
Archivo 1 Mi página de discusión del 10 de febrero de 2005 al 6 de septiembre de 2005.
Archivo 2 Mi página de discusión del 6 de septiembre de 2005 al 19 de diciembre de 2005.
Archivo 3 Mi página de discusión del 20 de diciembre de 2005 al 10 de febrero de 2006.
Archivo 4 Mi página de discusión del 21 de febrero de 2006 al 21 de abril de 2007.
Archivo 5 Mi página de discusión del 22 de abril de 2007 al 31 de mayo de 2007.
Archivo 6 Mi página de discusión, junio de 2007 archivada mientras estuve ausente.
Archivo 7 Mi página de discusión, julio de 2007 archivada mientras estuve ausente.
Archivo 8 Mi página de discusión desde agosto de 2007 hasta el 21 de enero de 2010
Archivo 9 Página de Mi Charla 21 de enero de 2010 al 21 de marzo de 2010
Archivo 10 Mi charla página 23 Marzo 2010 a septiembre 2012
Archivo 11 Mi página de discusión Octubre de 2012 a marzo de 2015
Archivo 12 Mi página de discusión Abril a junio de 2015
Archivo 13 Mi página de conversación Julio de 2015 a diciembre de 2016
Archivo 14 Mi página de discusión Febrero de 2017 a febrero de 2018
Bienvenido
¡Bienvenido!
Hola DESiegel, ¡ bienvenido a Wikipedia! Gracias por tus contribuciones. Espero que te guste el lugar y decidas quedarte. Aquí tienes algunos enlaces útiles para los recién llegados:
Espero que disfrutes editando aquí y siendo un wikipedista . Firma con tu nombre en las páginas de discusión usando cuatro tildes (~~~~); esto generará automáticamente tu nombre y la fecha. Si tienes alguna pregunta, consulta Wikipedia:Dónde hacer una pregunta o pregúntame en mi página de discusión. ¡De nuevo, bienvenido! -- Flockmeal 20:21, 10 de febrero de 2005 (UTC)
@DESiegel : Hola. Mi interés en la wiki es editar páginas de comida y verás que edito y mejoro principalmente páginas de comida en mi tiempo en la wiki. Actualmente estoy en una discusión contigo y otros en relación con la página foodporn . Me gustaría que investigaras a los usuarios Hogohit y Praxidicae . Una investigación de Special:Contributions/Hogohit demuestra que esta es simplemente una cuenta de vandalismo (ya que crearon esta cuenta hace solo 2 días con el único propósito de eliminar/vandalizar foodporn y 'food porn'). Además, si miras Special:Contributions/Praxidicae , este usuario solo hace ediciones al por mayor, solicitudes de eliminación rápidas y elimina bloques completos de ediciones y contenido en varias páginas sin ningún tipo de justificación o razón. Esto no es útil para los nuevos usuarios que intentan aprender a ser editores de wiki. Creo que ambos usuarios deberían ser baneados permanentemente por vandalismo. Gracias por tu tiempo. PD: disculpas, mi 'lenguaje wiki' aún necesita algo de trabajo. Estoy aprendiendo sobre la marcha :)
Marketing orientado a resultados, LLC
Hola. ¿Podrías redactar o convertir en usuario el artículo en cuestión, o al menos enviarme una copia del wikitexto? Gracias. — Jeff G. ツ13:55, 26 de febrero de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Los módulos de los cursos están quedando obsoletos
Hola,
Su cuenta está configurada actualmente con una bandera de programa educativo. Este sistema (el sistema de cursos) está quedando obsoleto. Por lo tanto, su cuenta pronto se actualizará para eliminar estas banderas que ya no son compatibles. Para obtener detalles sobre los cambios y cómo migrar al uso del sistema de reemplazo (el Panel de programas y eventos), consulte Wikipedia:Tablón de anuncios de educación/Archivo 18#AVISO: La extensión del programa educativo está quedando obsoleta .
Hecho — xaosflux Talk 17:47, 2 abril 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminación rápida de la página "Oksana Tanasiv"
Recibí un mensaje de https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EditPage/User:Mduvekot sobre demasiadas referencias al sitio web del artista. No tuve tiempo suficiente para corregirlo. Las referencias al sitio web del artista podrían eliminarse si van en contra de las reglas de Wikipedia. Se crearon con el propósito de brindar información sobre colecciones. Renueve la página para que pueda eliminar todas las referencias al sitio web del artista. Saludos cordiales, — Comentario anterior sin firmar agregado por Editorforart ( discusión • contribuciones ) 04:39, 10 de marzo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola, Editorforart, he eliminado el artículo por ser demasiado promocional. No se trata solo de referencias al sitio web del artista, sino de que todo el texto se lee como un anuncio del artista o un CV. Lo he restaurado y lo he movido a Borrador:Oksana Tanasiv, donde se puede editar para que sea una prueba basada en hechos. Recuerda que todas las afirmaciones deben estar respaldadas, o poder respaldarse, por fuentes confiables . Lee la Regla de oro de Wikipedia y Tu primer artículo antes de continuar. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 16:53, 10 de marzo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oksana Tanasiv
Editorforart ( discusión ) 17:37 10 mar 2018 (UTC) Gracias por devolver el artículo al borrador. Corregiré los problemas y mejoraré el artículo para que cumpla con los estándares requeridos. Además, agradecería cualquier ayuda o ayuda de voluntarios para corregirlo. Gracias. [ responder ]
Por supuesto, Editorforart. Por favor, no incluya opiniones personales o declaraciones subjetivas sobre la naturaleza del trabajo del artista. Todas las declaraciones deben ser claramente objetivas o, en su defecto, deben citarse opiniones de fuentes confiables que estén claramente marcadas como tales. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 17:40 10 mar 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sikander Menghro
Hola David, rechazaste la eliminación rápida de Sikander Menghro . En realidad, la página la creé yo por error. Ya existe una página sobre la misma persona con un nombre diferente, Sikandar Ali Mandhro . La redirección no tiene sentido porque la ortografía es incorrecta, por lo tanto, sugerí que se elimine. -- Saqib ( discusión ) 20:03, 10 de marzo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Una cerveza para ti!
A+F en NMWA 17/03/2018
¡Hola! La contraseña es "af". Espero que puedas registrarte sin problemas y espero que te unas a nosotros el sábado. Avísame si necesitas más ayuda. sarahobender ( discusión • contribuciones ) 13:13 12 mar 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
AGF
Ya he tenido problemas con tu tono autoritario antes. Si alguien necesita un AGF, eres tú. Considera hablar sobre COIN y no sobre las personas que trabajan duro para limpiar este lugar y reducir su mal uso. Gracias por tu comprensión y por tu excelente trabajo en la Casa de Té. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( discusión ) 17:08, 16 de marzo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
En respuesta a la amabilidad y al afán de aprender bien
Hola DESiegel, soy Deermouse , gracias por la aclaración gramatical. Yo también lo sé, pero elegí practicar las habilidades de comunicación para mejorar el amor por la wiki. Esta respuesta a tu amable comentario está muy bien enviada, con mucho amor por la wiki. Espero mejorar mi edición pronto. Tengo que hacer algo de limpieza en la página de Nutrición humana . Me gustaría preguntar sobre este programa de embajadores, en lugar de sobre el tema MoS. Deermouse ( discusión ) 22:50, 18 de marzo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias
Hola DESiegel. Sé que ahora mismo nos hemos encontrado con un conflicto de ideas. Te pido disculpas por ello. Quiero que sepas que he estado trabajando con reFill durante unos meses y he pasado muchas horas trabajando en las citas que no corrige. Mis esfuerzos tienen como objetivo mantener clara la Categoría:Todos los artículos con URLs simples para citas . Ha sido una buena experiencia de aprendizaje (y me ha dejado los dedos cansados al escribir algunas veces), pero también me ha enseñado que reFill no es perfecto y que ciertamente no está diseñado para lograr lo que tú estás intentando lograr. Creo que tu nueva plantilla se ve bien y agradezco esta edición, ya que evitará cualquier confusión sobre lo que ese programa no puede hacer. Nuevamente, te pido disculpas por cualquier disgusto que te haya causado en la tarde o en el día, según dónde vivas. MarnetteD | Discusión 02:16, 21 de marzo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
MarnetteD , no me molesta en absoluto. Me disculpo por mi tono. Tenías razón, usar una etiqueta que prometía que refill solucionaría lo que en realidad no solucionaría no fue útil. Estaba pensando en el propósito general de {{ linkrot }} pero su redacción específica realmente no encajaba en esta situación, y cuando señalaste que ese era el problema, básicamente cloné {{ linkrot }} , cambié la redacción y eliminé las referencias a refill. Creo que refill ha mejorado significativamente últimamente, y si eso fue en parte tu culpa, gracias. Supongo que ya no agrega información adicional en el parámetro de título como solía hacerlo, y como lo hacía la herramienta anterior. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 02:24, 21 de marzo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hmmm. No estoy seguro, ya que no creo haber usado la versión anterior. No he visto que incluya nada más que el título básico en ese campo, pero he visto algunos campos de título con mucho más que el título real. Gracias a tu mensaje, ahora sé por qué :-) Mis habilidades de programación wiki son mínimas, por lo que es el trabajo de otros lo que habrá generado mejoras. Saludos y disfruta del resto de tu semana. MarnetteD | Discusión 02:34, 21 de marzo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Otro usuario, Suzann Christine y Damon Allen Jr., eliminó dos de mis últimas incorporaciones a Wikipedia. Él es administrador. El motivo de la eliminación fue que parecía promocional. Le comuniqué que me gustaría tener la oportunidad de editar las páginas, pero las eliminaron sin que nadie me las hubiera propuesto. Fue bastante repentino y sorprendente, teniendo en cuenta que las páginas ya llevan varios meses en su sitio.
Me tomé un tiempo para realizar varios cursos de capacitación de Wikipedia para estar mejor preparado para editar. El administrador que eliminó las páginas no ha respondido durante 24 horas, por lo que me comunico contigo, ya que me ayudaste con las ediciones en mi primera página, Charlie Heat . Lo que estoy pidiendo es que se restablezcan las adiciones para poder editar de una manera más neutral. No me di cuenta de que al citar a personas que elogian, a su vez estaría adoptando un tono promocional. Me aconsejó que eliminara el material citado y simplemente expusiera los hechos. Lo entiendo.
También me preguntó si me habían pagado por editar en Wikipedia y TODAVÍA no me lo habían pagado. Tengo la intención de que me lo paguen en el futuro, por lo que he añadido la plantilla PAGADA requerida a mi página de usuario.
Comuníquese conmigo. Las páginas se eliminaron la semana pasada. Utilicé los temas como una forma de obtener una buena experiencia en este entorno.
Whitevwins , primero debes entender que la mayoría de los editores de Wikipedia, y hasta donde yo sé, todos los administradores de Wikipedia, son voluntarios totalmente no remunerados que editan y realizan funciones administrativas en su tiempo libre. Lee Wikipedia:No hay fecha límite . Un retraso de 24 horas no suele constituir "falta de respuesta". No responder durante una semana o dos podría serlo. Seraphimblade es un administrador muy respetado y experimentado. También lo es Kudpung . Como te dijo Kudpung, pedirle a un administrador que deshaga los actos de otro ("administrador comprando") no suele ser bien recibido. Si no puedes llegar a un acuerdo con el administrador que borra, el siguiente paso debería ser la revisión de la eliminación , pero eso no debería intentarse hasta que se haya llevado a cabo una discusión completa con el administrador que borra, o el administrador se haya negado rotundamente a restaurar el texto de cualquier manera, o haya estado sin responder durante un período de tiempo significativo. También es cierto que algunos administradores pondrán a los editores pagos más abajo en su lista de prioridades para la asistencia que a los voluntarios.
Por favor, comprenda que alguien que espera o incluso tiene la esperanza de que le paguen por editar es un editor pago tanto como alguien a quien le pagan por adelantado o que recibe un salario, y debe revelar su estado de pago antes de realizar más ediciones en nombre de clientes o empleadores. Si no lo hace, se le bloqueará la edición. Si bien soy un poco más comprensivo con aquellos editores pagos que cumplen con las reglas actuales que otros administradores, en realidad no estoy a favor de la edición paga y bloquearé libremente a los editores pagos que no hayan revelado su información. Veo que ahora ha hecho una divulgación general. Recuerde agregar artículos o borradores específicos a esa divulgación a medida que los cree o edite por un pago.
Revisé brevemente el texto eliminado de Suzann Christine y Damon Allen Jr. Ambos eran, en mi opinión, significativamente promocionales. Tal vez no hubiera hecho una eliminación rápida de ninguno de ellos si hubiera sido el administrador para revisarlos, pero al menos los hubiera movido al borrador o al espacio de usuario y hubiera emitido una advertencia. Un lenguaje como pasión , para ejercer su activismo y expresar abiertamente su talento y habilidad es promocional y no debe usarse. Cuando se utiliza una cita, no solo debe estar respaldada por una cita, sino que debe atribuirse a su fuente en el texto del artículo, no solo en una nota al pie. Citas como Siempre cantando, desde los 5 años, prestó su voz a la iglesia y a los concursos de talentos, pero no pensó en convertir su pasión en una carrera. transmiten un punto de vista sólido y, por lo general, es mejor evitarlas, incluso si son citas precisas. Esa información fáctica se puede transmitir con palabras como Su trabajo fue revisado favorablemente por "Geo" del proyecto Philly Music (seguido de la cita). Cabe señalar también que una declaración como “ Ella ha actuado en muchos eventos, en particular en el Festival N2N, que incluyó un homenaje al artista formalmente conocido como Prince” podría interpretarse como una forma de mencionar a alguien. El homenaje a Prince no hace que Suzann Christine sea más famosa, pero puede parecer que sí. Incluso si fueran ciertas, tales declaraciones deberían evitarse.
Te insto a que, si quieres continuar con estos artículos, los vuelvas a crear en borrador o en el espacio de usuario, haciendo todo lo posible por ceñirte estrictamente a los hechos, sin juicios ni manipulaciones, y los envíes para su revisión a través de Artículos para la creación , como aconsejó Kudpung. Evita los adjetivos de juicio y opinión, excepto en citas directas atribuidas y citadas.
Espero que esto sea de ayuda. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 22:34 29 mar 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
DESiegel (discusión · contribuciones ) Muy útil. Aprecio mucho tu visión y orientación. Seguiré el consejo de editar primero en borrador o en el espacio de usuario y luego enviar para revisión a través de artículos para creación , como aconsejó Kudpung. Whitevwins ( discusión ) 22:44, 29 de marzo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
12 días de pizza, la ayuda más apreciada
¡Muchas gracias, DESiegel!
He enviado los siguientes enlaces: Enlaces externos
Gracias por el consejo que me diste con respecto a la página que estoy escribiendo sobre el artista de Palestina. Soy nuevo en Wikipedia y admito que me siento como si estuviera en un laberinto. Quiero seguir las pautas de Wikipedia al pie de la letra y quiero ser un colaborador efectivo y productivo. ¿Puedo contactarte con preguntas mientras trabajo para preparar la página para su aprobación o siempre debo ir directamente a la Casa de Té?
Hola de nuevo, George David NH . Me alegro mucho de haber sido útil. No dudes en ponerte en contacto conmigo si tienes alguna pregunta en cualquier momento. Sin embargo, no estoy en Wikipedia todo el tiempo y puedo pasar varios días sin iniciar sesión, según lo que esté sucediendo en mi vida fuera de Wikipedia. Si quieres una respuesta más rápida, publicar en la casa de té no es una mala idea. Hay otros voluntarios habituales que son hábiles y serviciales.
Siempre puedes llamar mi atención publicando aquí en mi página de discusión. O puedes enviarme un mensaje colocando el código {{ping|DESiegel}}en {{u|DESiegel}}cualquier página de discusión donde quieras mi atención, como parte de un nuevo comentario firmado. Ten en cuenta que sin la firma, el software no me notifica.
Las políticas, pautas y prácticas de Wikipedia son complejas. Cada una de ellas existe por una razón, a menudo una buena razón. Pero nadie debería actuar con dureza hacia un nuevo editor que intenta actuar de buena fe de forma adecuada. (Algunos pueden hacerlo, pero nadie debería hacerlo). Mantenga su mente firme en unas pocas políticas clave: verificabilidad y la necesidad de citar fuentes para respaldar la mayoría de las afirmaciones factuales; notabilidad , la necesidad de incluir solo artículos sobre temas notables; el punto de vista neutral y la necesidad de no elogiar ni menospreciar a ninguna persona, tema o concepto en la voz de Wikipedia, sino mantener los artículos factuales; Qué no es Wikipedia , la necesidad de no incluir contenido inapropiado, la política de biografías de personas vivas , la necesidad de ser extremadamente cuidadoso al escribir sobre personas que viven actualmente. Apéguese firmemente a estas y el resto más o menos seguirá su curso. No es casualidad que estas políticas básicas se superpongan y se refuercen entre sí.
¿Tienes alguna pregunta o problema actual con el que te gustaría que te ayudemos? En cualquier caso, te deseo una edición feliz y productiva. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 12:57 31 mar 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Una pregunta
Hola David. ¿Puedes ayudarme? Estoy teniendo problemas con la página de Wikipedia que he estado intentando crear. Debería estar en modo borrador, pero está activa. No sé cómo hacer mis referencias y pedí ayuda en un hilo aquí y me dejaron abandonado. ¿Puedes mirar la página, darme tu consejo y ayudarme a volver a ponerla en borrador? — Comentario anterior sin firmar agregado por George David NH ( discusión • contribuciones ) 21:25, 12 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Página eliminada: Premios Remix
Hola DESiegel, ¿acabas de eliminar mi borrador porque "viola los derechos de autor"? Por favor, ayuda, eran referencias, ¿no? Re: Remix Awards (Esta propuesta parece haber sido extraída de http://www.youredm.com/2017/02/19/check-nominees-2017-remix-awards/, http://dancingastronaut.com/2017/02/2017-remix-awards-announce-nominees-mmw-event/) — Comentario anterior sin firmar añadido por TimBello ( discusión • contribs ) 14:39 3 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola, TimBello. Gracias por informarme sobre esto. El borrador se registró muy alto en nuestras herramientas de detección de violaciones de derechos de autor, pero al analizarlo más de cerca, eso se debió a que las listas de nominados eran, por supuesto, las mismas en el borrador y en las fuentes. Este es uno de los pocos casos en los que es aceptable una identidad tan estrecha entre una página de Wikipedia y una página fuente, donde el contenido es básicamente una lista de hechos presentados en su orden natural, sin selección creativa. En este caso, no debería haberlo eliminado, y Shadowowl no debería haberlo etiquetado como violación de derechos de autor. Cometeremos errores.
En consecuencia, he restaurado el borrador: Premios Remix. Sin embargo, ya tenemos un artículo Premios Remix y sería mejor trabajar en él. Normalmente no tenemos dos artículos diferentes sobre el mismo tema, así que, a menos que tu borrador esté pensado como un reemplazo total, será una pérdida de esfuerzo. (No, nosotros tampoco).
Un par de puntos de procedimiento. Por favor, firme las publicaciones en las páginas de discusión y discusión con cuatro tildes ( ~~~~). Por favor, agregue las nuevas publicaciones al final de mi página de discusión (no en la parte superior) o use el botón "Nueva sección", que puede aparecer como un signo más. La mayoría de las páginas de discusión de usuarios tienen las nuevas publicaciones agregadas al final. Feliz edición y no dude en pedir ayuda o consejo. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 16:54, 3 abril 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
CSD G11 rechazado
Hola DESiegel. Veo que has rechazado mi etiqueta G11 en User:Attunement/Marvin_Bressler. Sin embargo, contiene frases promocionales como " educador y erudito de renombre" , "fue una figura destacada" , "fue esta preocupación intelectual la que impulsó la investigación de Bressler" . ¿Cómo es que esto no es G11? Saludos, -- » Shadowowl | discusión 15:38, 5 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Shadowowl , tenga en cuenta que WP:CSD#G11 dice Esto se aplica a páginas que son exclusivamente promocionales y que deberían ser reescritas fundamentalmente para cumplir con Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION . Si un tema es notable y el contenido podría ser reemplazado plausiblemente con texto escrito desde un punto de vista neutral , esto es preferible a la eliminación. Una página que es en gran parte factual con algunas frases promocionales y algo de exageración necesita ser editada para cumplir, no eliminada, y no es candidata a G11. Además, las páginas de usuario, que no están indexadas por los motores de búsqueda y pueden ser trabajos en progreso en un grado aún mayor que los artículos, deberían tener algo más de margen en este punto que los artículos. Esto estaba muy fuera de los parámetros de una rápida G11. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 16:16, 5 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ok, gracias por explicarlo. -- » Shadowowl | discusión 18:21 5 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Usuario: Webmaster en Kentucky Today/sandbox
Hola. Aunque no estoy de acuerdo con tu valoración de la página, me encantaría poder modificarla, pero no estoy seguro de que hayas sido lo suficientemente claro con este usuario para que no edite la página él mismo, independientemente de si ha declarado un COI. Lo pondré en Usuario:DESiegel/Kentucky Today, ¿vale? Deb ( discusión ) 19:48 5 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias, Deb . No he sido claro al respecto porque no estoy de acuerdo en que se requiera tal restricción en este caso. Sin embargo, publicaré una plantilla de colaborador conectado después de moverla al espacio de borradores. (Por cierto, el editor aparentemente no ha declarado un género, pero ha mencionado el nombre "Robin", que seguramente podría ser femenino). DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 19:58, 5 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
...o masculino :-) Bueno, si siguen publicando con ese nombre de usuario, los bloquearán independientemente de si han declarado interés o no. Estuve a punto de bloquearlos yo mismo si no te hubieras ofrecido a trabajar en el artículo. Deb ( discusión ) 07:50 6 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Página de usuario
¡Hola! Estaba leyendo tu página de usuario (porque alguien tiene que asegurarse de que vayan a usarla), y entonces noté la sección de errores tipográficos. Tenía curiosidad por saber si el error tipográfico que cometiste en Wikipedia en esa sección fue intencional o exactamente el tipo de cosas a las que te referías. (Para que conste, me pareció bastante gracioso de cualquier manera). — Compassionate727 ( T · C ) 00:58, 6 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola, Compassionate727 . No, no dejé ningún error en la página intencionalmente, y ahora que me has llamado la atención sobre uno, lo arreglaré. Esa sección no ha cambiado desde hace varios años. Actualmente tengo el corrector ortográfico en la ventana de edición del navegador, por lo que las cosas están mejor, pero aún cometo errores tipográficos cuando no tengo cuidado. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 02:42 6 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Etiquetado de Khaled Malas
Estimado DESiegel, usted mencionó que examinaría la posibilidad de etiquetar a Khaled Malas para que sea más conocido y promocional. La página de discusión intenta abordar este problema, pero el etiquetador lo ha ignorado. ¿Qué se puede hacer? He intentado hacer lo que sugirió y he añadido más citas. ¡Gracias! Coneyislandbaby lou ( discusión ) 12:19 6 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Coneyislandbaby lou, he iniciado una discusión en Talk:Khaled Malas , el lugar adecuado para discutir el tema. Por favor, únete a esa discusión. También he estado mejorando los metadatos bibliográficos en las citas sobre Khaled Malas , lo que hará que sea más fácil ver qué tan buena es la evidencia de notabilidad. Si agregas más citas, por favor proporciona datos tan completos como sea posible, no solo una URL. Gracias. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 14:59, 6 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estimado señor, eliminó un artículo de Wikipedia sobre The Bosman Twins. Pedí que se considerara la posibilidad de restablecer el artículo, sin embargo, se negó debido al mal comportamiento del autor. Se trata de un hecho desafortunado y no debería repercutir en The Bosman Twins ni en ningún envío futuro. En este punto, le pido que POR FAVOR me envíe por correo electrónico una copia del artículo original como cortesía. Un correo electrónico directamente a <redacted> funcionará perfectamente. Ya intenté habilitar "enviar un correo electrónico a este usuario" y no tuve éxito. Como dije, no soy un usuario sofisticado de este widget de Wikipedia tan difícil. En pocas palabras, no pude averiguar cómo hacerlo. Espero que esta comunicación le llegue y que responda, disculpando mi ignorancia. Gracias PR1775. Pr1775 ( discusión ) 16:39, 8 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Pr1775, Para habilitar la función "Enviar un correo electrónico a este usuario", vaya a Especial: Preferencias . Desplácese hacia abajo hasta la sección Opciones de correo electrónico. Complete su dirección de correo electrónico en "Correo electrónico (opcional)*". Marque la casilla marcada "Permitir que otros usuarios me envíen correos electrónicos". También puede marcar una o más de las otras casillas. Luego haga clic en el botón "Guardar".
No borré The Bosman Twins. Eso lo hizo pacemanSpiff. Hiciste una pregunta en Teahouse al respecto, ahora archivada en [1]. Se te recomendó que preguntaras en WP:REFUND o que comenzaras de nuevo. Alguien que editaba sin iniciar sesión, tal vez tú, lo hizo, ahora archivado en [2]. La respuesta fue que las eliminaciones por violaciones de bloqueo no se restaurarían de manera rutinaria. Volviste a preguntar en Teahouse el 11 de marzo y respondí, ofreciéndome a enviarte una copia por correo electrónico. Ahora lo haré.
Te advierto que no debes simplemente recrear el artículo usando el texto que estoy a punto de enviarte. Eso violaría los derechos de autor del usuario bloqueado y de cualquier otro usuario que haya contribuido al mismo. En lugar de eso, usa esto como base para reescribir el artículo con palabras nuevas. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 17:17 8 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Gracias por tus amables comentarios! Pregunta rápida.
Señor Siegel,
Gracias por tu opinión sobre el tema de Lapin. Pido disculpas por haber entendido mal el protocolo de divulgación y no busqué engañar intencionalmente a los lectores o colaboradores. Entiendo que has encontrado algunos problemas con el contenido en cuestión. ¿Es justo suponer que tengo la libertad de hacer sugerencias o solicitar una edición con las divulgaciones y el resumen de la edición adecuados?
Hola, Aharonovlaw . Una vez que hayas hecho la divulgación, eres libre de publicar en Talk:Nicole Lapin (o en cualquier otra página de discusión de artículos) con sugerencias, induciendo fuentes sugeridas, ediciones sugeridas y razones por las que crees que se deben o no realizar ediciones particulares, o que un contenido particular debería o no estar en el artículo. Para llamar la atención sobre una solicitud de una edición específica, crea una nueva sección en la página, describe la edición solicitada lo más exactamente posible, incluyendo fuentes confiables que la respalden, y colócala {{Request edit}}debajo de la descripción. Esto agregará la solicitud a una lista monitoreada por varios editores experimentados. Puedes encontrar instrucciones detalladas en Template:Request edit . Otras sugerencias se pueden hacer simplemente en la página de discusión del artículo. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 23:47, 8 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ah, para responder a tu otra pregunta, Aharonovlaw , los problemas que encontré fueron que las fuentes pueden no ser suficientes para sustentar la adición de la sección de controversias, y que la respuesta citada de Laoin actualmente no se cita en ninguna fuente. Si tienes una fuente para esa cita, sería útil. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 23:51 8 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Tu consejo y ayuda
Hola David. ¿Puedes ayudarme? Estoy teniendo problemas con la página de Wikipedia que he estado intentando crear. Debería estar en modo borrador, pero está activa. No sé cómo hacer mis referencias y pedí ayuda en un hilo aquí y me dejaron abandonado. ¿Puedes mirar la página, darme tu consejo y ayudarme a volver a ponerla en borrador? — Comentario anterior sin firmar agregado por George David NH ( discusión • contribuciones ) 21:27, 12 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola, George David NH . He movido a Judith Weinshall Liberman a Borrador:Judith Weinshall Liberman, ya que parecías sentir que no estaba listo para el espacio del artículo principal, y estoy de acuerdo. Daré consejos más extensos sobre cómo citar fuentes más adelante, mientras tanto, lee Referencias para principiantes . DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 22:25, 12 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola David. Una vez más, gracias por tu aporte y consejo. Esta noche estoy leyendo la referencia para principiantes y tomando notas. Agradezco tu disposición a ayudar. Una vez que resuelva esto, debería resultarme más fácil si escribo otra página. George George David NH ( discusión ) 01:37, 13 de abril de 2018 (UTC) — El comentario anterior sin firmar lo agregó George David NH ( discusión • contribuciones ) 00:19, 13 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me alegra hacer lo que pueda, George David NH . Lamento no poder ser de más ayuda. Veo que sugirió una reunión física con otro wikipedista. No estoy geográficamente lo suficientemente cerca de usted como para hacerlo, pero tal vez podríamos reunirnos por teléfono alguna tarde (estoy en horario del este de EE. UU.).
He realizado algunas modificaciones menores en el borrador de Judith Weinshall Liberman. Échales un vistazo como ejemplos y toma nota de los resúmenes individuales de las modificaciones individuales en el historial.
A continuación se ofrecen algunos consejos específicos:
Tenga en cuenta que no se deben utilizar enlaces externos en el cuerpo de un artículo o borrador, excepto como parte de una cita de fuente. (Esos son enlaces a sitios fuera de Wikipedia. Si se menciona a una persona o tema que ya tiene un artículo en Wikipedia , incluya un enlace a ese artículo (como acabo de hacer con el de Wikipedia). Se pueden colocar algunos enlaces en una sección de "Enlaces externos". Por lo general, estos no deben ser sitios comerciales y deben estar allí para informar al lector, no para dirigir tráfico a los sitios. Consulte WP:EL para obtener una guía más detallada.
En cuanto a las referencias, lo más importante es seleccionar fuentes buenas y confiables. Una cita perfectamente formateada de una fuente no confiable no sirve de nada, mientras que una URL simple que lleve a una buena fuente se puede arreglar con bastante facilidad.
Tenga en cuenta que los sitios que consisten total o significativamente en contenido generado por el usuario sin supervisión, como Geni.com o IMDB.com, generalmente no se consideran confiables.
Una cita, utilizando el método de nota al pie, debe constar de una etiqueta <ref>, seguida del contenido de la cita, seguida de una etiqueta </ref>. El contenido debe constar de datos bibliográficos que identifiquen la fuente, o una URL que enlace a ella (si está en línea, o idealmente ambos. Los datos bibliográficos deseados son el título del artículo, el título o nombre de la obra que lo contiene, el nombre del autor (si está disponible), el número de página (si corresponde), la fecha de publicación (si está disponible), el editor (si está disponible y es útil, no agrega nada decir que The New York Times es publicado por New York Times Co), el ISBN y/o el número de OCLC para libros, y el volumen y número para revistas y periódicos que los usan. No todos estos son necesarios en una sola cita.
Las citas se pueden formatear utilizando plantillas de citas , pero no es obligatorio. En general, yo prefiero usarlas.
Espero que esta lista te resulte útil. ¿En qué problemas específicos estás atascado actualmente? DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 04:43 13 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Buenos días, David. Tu ayuda es muy apreciada, ya que la página que estoy creando me quita el sueño. Lo curioso es que escribo manuales técnicos y edito tesis universitarias para ganarme la vida y todavía no logro entender las reglas de Wiki. Gracias por ofrecerme una consulta telefónica. Te lo acepto si lo dices en serio. Tal vez podríamos mirar mi página al mismo tiempo y tú puedes explicarme algunas cosas que necesito cambiar o reformatear. Te pagaría a través de PayPal si tienes una cuenta de PayPal. George George David NH ( discusión ) 13:09, 13 de abril de 2018 (UTC) Además, una de mis principales preocupaciones es que no estoy seguro de cómo guardar mi borrador mientras está en proceso de edición. No quiero perder mi trabajo antes de que esté listo para publicarse. ¿Puedes decirme cómo guardar mi borrador mientras lo edito? George George David NH ( discusión ) 13:43, 13 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
No pierdas el sueño, George David NH . Recuerda que no hay una fecha límite . Lo dije en serio, aunque tendremos que encontrar un momento que nos convenga a ambos. De hecho, esta mañana estoy en un maratón de edición.
No acepto dinero por editar Wikipedia ni por dar consejos, y cualquiera que me lo pida probablemente sea un estafador. Lo más probable es que esté disponible por las tardes, digamos a partir de las 7:00 p. m. o de las 9:00 p. m. DES ( discusión) DESiegel Contribs 13:48 13 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
En cuanto a guardar un borrador, simplemente guarde cada edición con el botón "publicar cambios". Eso evita que se pierda el trabajo, pero no mueve el borrador al espacio principal del artículo. Asegúrese de que el nombre de la página comience con "Borrador:". Próximamente habrá más. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 13:48, 13 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Te estás convirtiendo en mi héroe de Wikipedia! ¿Podríamos hablar esta noche (viernes), mañana o mañana por la noche? Tendré una lista de preguntas a mano para no hacerte perder el tiempo. Además, he notado que cuando hago clic en "publicar cambios", la página se publica en línea. George George David NH ( discusión ) 14:23 13 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
George David NH "publicar cambios" sí guarda los cambios en el sitio de Wikipedia, donde están disponibles para cualquier persona en línea. Pero si la página está "en el espacio de nombres de borrador" (lo que simplemente significa que el nombre de la página comienza con "borrador") no se considera "activa", los motores de búsqueda no la indexan y no aparece en el buscador predeterminado de Wikipedia, aunque se puede encontrar si uno sabe cómo buscar. Te responderé cuando esté disponible esta noche. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 14:33, 13 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mi esposa me informa que no estaré en casa esta tarde (viernes) porque tengo que ayudar a su amiga a mudarse a su nuevo apartamento. ¿Podríamos hablar por teléfono mañana o el domingo? — Comentario anterior sin firmar añadido por George David NH ( discusión • contribuciones ) 19:31, 13 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
DESiegel Hola David. Estaré por aquí todo el fin de semana si encuentras tiempo para charlar por teléfono. George George David NH ( discusión ) 12:46 14 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola de nuevo, George David NH . ¿Hora de inicio hoy (domingo) de 14 a 16 h? Consulta tu correo electrónico para obtener información de contacto. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 11:59 15 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias por todo, David.
Reseña del 19 de abril de 2018
Hola David.
Cuando tengas un minuto, ¿puedes echar un vistazo a esta página y decirme qué piensas? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EditPage/Draft:Holocaust_Wall_Hangings
¿Crees que si hago tus recomendaciones de edición podría publicarlo mañana y ver cómo va?
En primer lugar, George David NH , veo que hay un problema en File:The Yellow Star.jpg , la imagen que subiste para el borrador. ¿Qué te dijo exactamente la artista sobre el permiso cuando te lo envió? ¿A qué correo electrónico o dirección enviaste el permiso aquí en Wikipedia y cuándo lo enviaste? ¿Puedes enviarme una copia del correo electrónico que enviaste, por favor?
Además, no digas "Evidencia: Se proporcionará a pedido" , en lugar de eso, describe los términos exactos bajo los cuales se ha publicado. Si se ha utilizado una licencia con nombre, indica el nombre de esa licencia. Además, incluye una declaración de que se ha enviado información de publicación a Wikimedia y cuándo. Seguiremos dando más información sobre el borrador en sí. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 21:41 19 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
A continuación, George David NH , debería haber números de página para las citas del libro Holocaust Wall Hangings . Si todas corresponden a la misma página o rango de páginas, colóquelas en la cita con |page=o |pages=. Si corresponden a páginas diferentes, utilice {{ rp }} justo después del cierre de la etiqueta <ref>...</ref>(or <ref/>). Observe que he eliminado los detalles de cita duplicados. Para eso están las referencias nombradas . Lea la sección vinculada, por favor. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 22:13, 19 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Te reenvié dos correos electrónicos. Son los que envié a Wikipedia con respecto a las fotos. Dave, nunca trabajé tan duro en nada en mi vida. ¡Ja!
Bien, George David NH . Ten en cuenta los cambios que hice en File:The_Yellow_Star.jpg y realiza cambios similares en todas las demás imágenes que hayas subido basándote en el mismo permiso otorgado. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 22:34 19 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Puedes decirme cómo llegar a las páginas de Hands Up y las fotos de Ana Frank para poder hacer los cambios como los que hiciste en Yellow Star? — Comentario anterior sin firmar agregado por George David NH ( discusión • contribuciones ) 22:41 19 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Vale, lo entiendo. Hice esas modificaciones para Hands Up jpg y Anne Frank jpg. Espero haberlo hecho bien.
Sí, las modificaciones se ven bien, George David NH . Di el enlace incorrecto arriba para Hnds up, un error de copiar y pegar, no se solucionó, pero encontraste la página correcta. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 23:20 19 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Rehice las citas del libro del artista de 2002 usando {{ rp }} para que no aparezca en las Notas varias veces, pero aún así muestre las referencias de número de página relevantes. ¿Ibas a hacer una sección de "Reacciones críticas" para las reseñas de la obra, George David NH ? Si se puede agregar, creo que está listo para el espacio principal. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 23:27 19 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sé que te digo esto todo el tiempo, pero realmente te aprecio y no podría convertirme en escritor de Wikipedia sin ti.
Podrías arreglártelas, George David NH , pero espero que te resulte más fácil. No olvides firmar todos y cada uno de los comentarios de la página de discusión con cuatro tildes (~~~~). DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 23:29 19 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Coloco el contenido de reacción crítica en "Recepción y Exposiciones" mencionando al NY Times y NBC, etc. Pero puedo cambiarlo a "Exposiciones" seguido de "Reacciones críticas" y mencionar al NY Times y otros con algunas citas de quienes escribieron los artículos. ¿Sería mejor? George George David NH ( discusión ) 23:38 19 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me gusta separar las críticas y reseñas, pero no hay ninguna regla que lo exija, George David NH . Creo que es más claro para el lector. No me di cuenta de que se habían incluido. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 23:46 19 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Voy a seguir el consejo de mi mentor y separar los dos. Una vez que esté listo para publicar, ¿cómo lo saco del borrador? George George David NH ( discusión ) 23:52 19 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eso es fácil, George David NH . Utiliza la función de mover . (Sigue el enlace para más detalles.) En el menú Página, (en la mayoría de las configuraciones) deberías encontrar un enlace "Mover página". Haz clic en él y selecciona (artículo) en el cuadro de la izquierda. Deja el título actual sin cambios. Haz clic en el botón azul Mover página cerca de la parte inferior. Eso lo hará. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 01:13, 20 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Separé Exposiciones y Respuestas críticas. Si te gusta el cambio, creo que estamos listos para empezar. Por favor, avísame si crees que todavía es un buen momento para pasar al espacio principal y cómo debería hacer para pasarlo del borrador al espacio principal. George George David NH ( discusión ) 01:06 20 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Creo que ya está todo listo. Vea las instrucciones para moverse más arriba. Creo que este es un buen artículo (aunque está lejos de ser un buen artículo ). DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 01:18, 20 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Recurso 1 de Chavonda Jacobs-Young
http://www.allgov.com/news/appointments-and-resignations/administrator-of-the-agricultural-research-service-who-is-chavonda-jacobs-young-141101?news=854693 — Comentario anterior sin firmar agregado por Pearlsa110 ( discusión • contribuciones ) 17:10 13 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Información adicional para la página de Wikipedia sobre ARS
¿Podrías agregar lo siguiente a la página de Wikipedia de ARS?
El centro de investigación más grande del ARS, también considerado el complejo de investigación agrícola más grande del mundo, es el Centro de Investigación Agrícola Henry A. Wallace Beltsville en Maryland.
Hola, solo tengo curiosidad por saber si todavía tenías pensado volver a participar en la discusión sobre Broadridge. Realmente agradezco tu participación en ambas secciones y espero que puedas ayudar a encontrar un compromiso con estas solicitudes. Gracias, WWB Too ( Discusión · COI ) 18:17, 13 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Usuario: Felsic2/Uso de armas
¿No viste que Gryffindor acaba de renunciar a la fregona por hacer lo que tú has hecho: usar herramientas para anular la protección y establecer tu resultado preferido? Entiendo que los ensayos no necesitan consenso, pero creo que te has equivocado en tu creencia sobre un resultado en MfD. He intentado buscar un resultado óptimo en el sentido de Pareto y tu insistencia ciega tendrá repercusiones. Chris Troutman ( discusión ) 22:44 13 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Chris troutman , la página estaba y está protegida contra cambios de ubicación para requerir acceso confirmado extendido para cambios de ubicación. Eso significa que cualquier usuario con confirmación extendida era libre de cambiar de ubicación como una acción editorial normal. No se requirió el uso de herramientas de administración. El motivo registrado para la protección fue una atracción por los calcetines. No soy un calcetín. No cambié el nivel de protección ni utilicé herramientas de administración de ninguna otra manera. No hubo consenso en la comunidad para no cambiar de ubicación la página.
Si crees que esto debería eliminarse en una reunión de MfD y que se llegará a un consenso para eliminarlo, adelante. No creo que una eliminación de este tipo sea adecuada ni esté respaldada por la política de eliminación, pero podría ser que la comunidad no esté de acuerdo. O siéntete libre de iniciar una RfC o alguna otra discusión comunitaria sobre qué lugar debería tener una página de este tipo en el proyecto. Mi decisión no violó ninguna política hasta donde puedo ver: revertí una acción editorial con la que no estaba de acuerdo, dando mis razones de manera transparente e invitando a la discusión. No tengo intención de entrar en una guerra de movimientos si alguien mueve esto hacia atrás o lo mueve más. Si realmente crees que he violado alguna política sobre acciones de administración, estoy seguro de que sabes qué hacer. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 22:57, 13 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Si entiendes que los ensayos no necesitan consenso , Chris Troutman , entonces ¿por qué escribiste ¿ Por qué moviste este ensayo? No creo que tengas consenso para mover este artículo al espacio de nombres de WP. y luego respondes a ¿Se requiere consenso? escribiendo Sí. ¿O has cambiado de opinión? DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 23:05, 13 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Tienes razón en ese sentido, por eso eliminé esa parte. Mantengo mi oposición a ese ensayo. Chris Troutman ( discusión ) 23:08 13 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hay muchos ensayos a los que me opongo, Chris troutman , empezando por WP:DENY , WP:DTTR y WP:TNT . La forma habitual de indicar oposición es presentar argumentos en contra en la página de discusión del ensayo, o comenzar un ensayo en contra con lo que usted cree que son argumentos superiores. Me encantaría ver sus argumentos en contra de los puntos planteados en este ensayo. Tal oposición no es, en mi opinión, una razón para eliminar el ensayo ni para sacarlo del espacio del proyecto. No todos los ensayos convencen a mucha gente aquí. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 23:13, 13 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Notificación de enlace de desambiguación para el 14 de abril
Hola. Gracias por tus recientes ediciones. Un proceso automatizado ha detectado que cuando editaste recientemente Agricultural Research Service , agregaste un enlace que apunta a la página de desambiguación AAAS (verifica para confirmar | corrige con el solucionador Dab). Dichos enlaces suelen ser incorrectos , ya que una página de desambiguación es simplemente una lista de temas no relacionados con títulos similares. (Lee las Preguntas frecuentes • Únete a nosotros en el WikiProject DPL ).
David, parece que tal vez te hice perder el tiempo con respecto a esa posible violación de derechos de autor. Mis más sinceras disculpas. Aprendí una valiosa lección con respecto a la "copia inversa". Allan Mungall ( discusión ) 18:26 19 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Borrador de Mojo Workings...
Hola DESiegel, lo siento, pero pedí ayuda hace más de un mes. Desafortunadamente, no pude ver mi página de Wikipedia en el último mes, por razones personales. Hoy vi que me dejaste un mensaje en Teahouse sobre mi solicitud, en relación con 'Mojo WorKings draft page'. No pude encontrar este mensaje. ¿Te importaría, por favor, enviarme uno nuevo? Si es posible, puedo recibirlo en mi dirección de correo electrónico: <redacted> Gracias de antemano, Karcsúbey ( discusión ) 15:39 23 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Karcsúbey, puedes encontrar tu pregunta y mi respuesta en Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 746#Draft: Mojo WorKings . El núcleo de mi respuesta fue Desde la última declinación el 7 de diciembre de 2017, agregaste una palabra al texto y una referencia general al borrador ( http://www.bluesvan.hu/index.php?q=mojo+workings&s=keres%E9s) que no se usó para respaldar ninguna declaración específica en el borrador. ... Hay muchas declaraciones en el borrador que actualmente no están respaldadas por citas en línea. Debes respaldar al menos algunas de ellas y citar fuentes confiables independientes publicadas adicionales que discutan esta banda con cierta profundidad, digamos varios párrafos cada una o más, para que se acepte el borrador. Espero que sea útil. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 16:22 23 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias
Leandro Soto Ortiz
Contacto inicial, 5 de abril
Hola DESiegel, cambié el cuadro de información para eliminar "cubano-estadounidense" y solo puse "cubano".
Pero ¿a qué título de sección te referías? Muchos otros editores han eliminado algunos.
Otros editores han causado estragos y no puedo seguir sus sugerencias: un editor eliminó la única referencia que tenía en "Notas y referencias", lo que me obligó a detener todas las ediciones posteriores hasta que buscara sus enlaces. No copié la referencia, así que ¿qué hago ahora? ¡Esa única referencia estaba allí antes de que comenzara a editar!
Un editor dijo que "Biografía: Wikipedia no puede hacer referencia a sí misma". (Dejé una nota en su página de discusión). Otro editor dijo "Corregir y formatear referencias, mover una única referencia definida en lista a una referencia en línea". Supongo que este fue el que eliminó la única referencia de "Notas y referencias", pero aún aparece como [1] en la página de texto. (Supongo que también tengo que enviarle una nota en su página de discusión).
Dejé una nota en la parte superior de la página pidiendo a todos que dejen de editar hasta que termine. ¡Espero que no haya problema! Leandro Soto Ortiz
¡Esta es una de las cosas más difíciles que he hecho y me estoy desanimando muchísimo!
Hola, Lauraj210 . Lamento que te sientas frustrada. Recuerda que todos los cambios y versiones anteriores se guardan en el historial del artículo, por lo que siempre puedes ver lo que había en cualquier versión anterior. Si miras el historial (normalmente en el menú "ver historial") verás una lista de todos los cambios realizados, el resumen de la edición que dejó el editor, la marca de tiempo y otra información. Si hace clic en el enlace "prev", verá los cambios realizados en esa edición, lo que le ayudará a comprender lo que se quería decir con un resumen de edición determinado. Por ejemplo, hice esta edición ayer. Comenté el parámetro no compatible "ethnicity" en el cuadro de información y cambié el encabezado de sección "Selected Pubications" a "Selected publications" corrigiendo la capitalización y la ortografía. Esta edición es la que movió la referencia definida por la lista al cuerpo del artículo. Como puede ver, la cita a http://proust.library.miami.edu/findingaids/index.php?p=collections/findingaid&id=103 todavía está en su lugar, aunque con un formato diferente.
La edición resumida como "Biografía: Wikipedia no puede hacer referencia a sí misma" fue la siguiente. "Biografía" aquí se refiere a nuestra política sobre las biografías de personas vivas , que impone reglas más estrictas que otros tipos de artículos, para proteger a las personas de posibles difamaciones y declaraciones sin fuentes. También es la regla en Wikipedia que los artículos de Wikipedia nunca pueden usarse como fuentes.
La forma en que generalmente pedimos a los demás que dejen de editar por un momento es con {{ inuse }} . He reemplazado su mensaje informal con este.
Tenga en cuenta que, en general, cualquiera es libre de editar cualquier artículo en cualquier momento. Sin embargo, una solicitud cortés de esperar un par de horas suele ser aceptada.
Para ser honesto, este artículo no ha tenido un gran número de ediciones, muchas son mucho más activas.
Espero que esto te sea útil. No dudes en dejarme un mensaje aquí en cualquier momento y te responderé lo antes posible. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 22:29 25 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola DESiegel, noté el {{ inuse }} -- ¡gracias! Necesito un poco más de tiempo que unas pocas horas -- tal vez para mañana. (¡Ya pasó la hora de cenar!) Noté que {{ Under construction }} invita a otros a ayudar... bueno, ¡es lo que es! Cuando vuelva a trabajar en él mañana, lo reemplazaré con {{ inuse }} nuevamente, ¿cierto?
Miré la página de historial, pero el "prev" me resultó confuso... pero ahora no tanto. Debo estar acostumbrándome a Wikipedia.
Ahora estoy trabajando en las exposiciones individuales seleccionadas, que eliminé por falta de enlaces. En un caso, no había ningún enlace, así que agregué una nota al pie (que es una duplicación de una nota al pie anterior; para la segunda usé <ref name="name" />). Cuba está muy atrasada en cuanto al acceso a Internet. Cuando llegue a las exposiciones grupales seleccionadas, incluso si hay enlaces, ¿puedo agregar también algunas notas al pie?
Cuando tengas un minuto, ¿podrías comprobar que estoy haciendo todo correctamente? Lauraj210 ( discusión ) 02:08 26 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Lauraj210 , Se ve mucho mejor, aunque todavía se necesita trabajo.
Un punto importante: no debe haber un enlace a un sitio web fuera de Wikipedia en el cuerpo del artículo, excepto como parte de una cita (nota a pie de página). Esos enlaces se conocen como "enlaces externos" y deben colocarse únicamente en la sección "Enlaces externos" y con moderación. (La línea "sitio web" en un cuadro de información es una excepción, pero solo para un sitio). El uso de una cita para cada hecho mencionado es la forma preferida de respaldar los hechos mencionados. Debe hacerse independientemente de si hay o no un enlace a otra página de Wikipedia (conocido como "enlace wiki") en la declaración. Dicho enlace no es obligatorio de ninguna manera.
En segundo lugar, las fuentes no necesitan estar en línea para ser citadas. Por ejemplo, para citar un periódico que no tiene una edición en línea, simplemente proporcione el título de la historia, el nombre del periódico, la fecha y página de publicación y el autor/firma si se indica. Si el periódico no es muy conocido, el editor y el lugar de publicación también pueden ser útiles. La plantilla {{ cite news }} se puede utilizar para este propósito. Para citar un libro impreso, utilice {{ cite book }} , proporcionando el título, el autor, el editor, el año de publicación, la página o páginas relevantes y el ISBN si está disponible. (O la misma información se puede proporcionar manualmente, sin usar cite book.) También existen {{ cite magazine }} y {{ cite journal }} , {{ cite web }} para fuentes en línea que no son ni libros ni noticias, y varias otras. Consulte Wikipedia:Plantillas de citas y Referencias para principiantes . La idea básica es brindar suficiente información para que un lector pueda, con algo de esfuerzo, encontrar la fuente en una biblioteca o librería y pueda emitir un juicio sobre la confiabilidad de la fuente incluso sin encontrarla.
Tenga en cuenta que una cita no debe ser simplemente un enlace a un sitio sobre una institución o persona, sino una fuente confiable que respalde la afirmación del artículo.
Para mencionar y vincular una plantilla sin usarla, Template:Tl , que utilicé varias veces anteriormente, es muy útil. (Tenga en cuenta que proporciona un enlace a la página de la plantilla, donde normalmente se documentan los parámetros de la plantilla).
Para mostrar un fragmento de código wiki en lugar de usarlo, colóquelo dentro de una <nowiki>...</nowiki>construcción. Puede colocarlo opcionalmente dentro de una <code>...</code>construcción para resaltar que es código wiki.
Sí, cuando haya terminado de editar activamente , reemplace {{ inuse }} con {{ under construction }} y revierta esto cuando esté listo para reanudar.
El uso de "referencias nombradas" (el <ref name="name" />constructo) es exactamente la forma correcta de repetir una nota al pie. Gracias por utilizarlas correctamente.
Espero que esto sea útil. No dudes en hacer más preguntas en esta página de discusión o en enviarme un mensaje en otra página de discusión. Responderé cuando pueda. O no dudes en preguntar en la Teahouse . DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 02:46 26 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Segundo Intercambio, 28 de abril
Hola de nuevo, DESiegel, ayer no pude trabajar en la página de Leandro Soto Ortiz ... Prefiero hablar contigo, ya que has sido de mucha ayuda, de ahora en adelante, ¿te parece bien?
En cuanto a tu primer punto: ¡entendido! Entonces, el único que tiene un enlace interno es el Museo Nacional de Bellas Artes, y el resto no tienen enlaces, ¿verdad? ¿Debo hacer referencia a Big Orbit Gallery y Galeria Nine Menocal en la sección de referencias, o es innecesario? Noto que otros artistas cubanos han incluido enlaces a la ciudad, así que lo hice para esos dos, pero tengo la sensación de que preferirías que los eliminara. También he notado que en otras páginas de artistas cubanos, SÓLO hay enlaces a las instituciones en exposiciones individuales y colectivas, y colecciones. ( Adriano Buergo , Luis Enrique Camejo , por nombrar dos. Carlos Enrique Prado Herrera no utilizó ningún enlace en absoluto). Theroadislong eliminó cuatro secciones (Exposiciones individuales, Exposiciones colectivas, Premios y Colecciones) porque no tenían fuentes. Aquí hay confusión, ya que ya había pasado medio día buscando enlaces Wiki para las Colecciones (y algunos enlaces externos, que eventualmente eliminaré)...
He estado usando las plantillas para {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, y en un caso (Blanc Giulio) no hay una referencia en línea, pero creo que lo tengo cubierto bien.
He copiado el 'enlace sin usarlo' y '<nowiki>' (verás que ya lo he usado) en mi creciente archivo personal de Wikipedia...
He puesto algunos enlaces Wiki en la biografía. Creo que lo he hecho correctamente.
En primer lugar, no hay fecha límite . Edita cuando puedas, no te preocupes por tu cronograma de edición. No hiciste ninguna promesa sobre cuándo se realizaría una edición determinada.
La lección que se desprende de las eliminaciones de Theroadislong es que las fuentes son vitales. Esto es así tanto si hay un enlace wiki como si no. La fuente de cada exposición debería ser una que indique que la exposición se celebró y que Ortiz participó. También debería confirmar la fecha, si es posible. Por encima de todo, debe ser fiable . Busque e inserte fuentes antes de preocuparse por posibles enlaces wiki o enlaces externos. No es necesario citar una fuente simplemente para demostrar que existe una galería en particular, pero si tenemos una página de Wikipedia sobre la galería (u otro lugar de exposición) se puede enlazar a ella mediante un enlace wiki. Pero dicho enlace no sustituye en ningún caso a una fuente que demuestre que se celebró la exposición en particular.
Los enlaces wiki se incluyen para brindar contexto y guiar al lector a información adicional relevante. Lo que se debe vincular es una cuestión de criterio personal, no hay una regla estricta. Consulte MOS:OVERLINK para obtener algunas sugerencias sobre lo que no se debe vincular.
Las fuentes NO necesitan estar en línea, siempre que estén publicadas y que un lector pueda verificarlas, posiblemente sólo después de tomarse algunas molestias y gastar algo de dinero.
En esta edición, cambié un enlace que llevaba a una página de desambiguación Instalación por uno que llevaba a Arte de instalación mediante un enlace canalizado . Así es como se crea un enlace wiki cuando el título de la página no es el texto del enlace deseado. Se hace a menudo en Wikipedia.
Espero que estos puntos te sean de utilidad. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 00:55 28 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Tercera Bolsa, 28 de abril
Lauraj210 , visité los artículos a los que enlazaste arriba, Adriano Buergo , Luis Enrique Camejo y Carlos Enrique Prado Herrera . En cada caso hay una grave falta de fuentes citadas. En cada caso, he añadido etiquetas que lo indican. El último puede eliminarse a menos que se añada al menos una fuente al artículo. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 01:06 28 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola DESiegel, gracias por los enlaces. He quitado el enlace "rendimiento" (todo el mundo sabe lo que es), pero gracias por el enlace. He leído el artículo y veo que sería muy útil.
Espero que [[Carlos Enrique Prado Herrera]] reciba una notificación por correo electrónico, para que pueda copiar su página antes de que la borren, si no tiene tiempo de hacer referencias ahora mismo. ¡No me gustaría pensar en que pierda toda esa información!
Buenas noches, Lauraj210 ( discusión ) 03:42 28 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Lauraj210 , sobre el artículo de Carlos Enrique Prado Herrera , nadie recibe nunca notificaciones por correo electrónico de las acciones en la wiki, a menos que esa persona tenga una cuenta en Wikipedia y haya configurado notificaciones automáticas para ciertos tipos de acciones. Por ejemplo, recibo correos electrónicos cuando alguien (que no sea yo) publica en mi página de discusión de usuario. Ese artículo fue creado y editado en gran parte por Herosfanes, a quien se le notificó en su página de discusión de usuario. Todo lo que se necesita para evitar la eliminación propuesta es que cualquiera agregue una sola cita de una fuente confiable al artículo que respalde cualquier hecho allí. Cualquier editor puede hacer esto. (Veo que desde ayer se han agregado unas nueve citas). Además, en Wikipedia, la "eliminación" en realidad no borra un artículo, simplemente lo oculta para que solo los administradores puedan verlo. Si se elimina un artículo a través de la eliminación propuesta, cualquiera puede solicitar más tarde que se recupere en WP:REFUND . Incluso cuando un artículo no se puede recuperar, un editor puede solicitar una copia del texto por correo electrónico, y generalmente se le proporcionará. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribuciones 14:04, 28 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
En otro punto, tenga cuidado con las etiquetas nowiki. Si no se proporciona la etiqueta /nowiki correspondiente, se ignora cualquier marcado wiki en el resto de la página, lo que puede cambiar significativamente el aspecto de la página. Una forma de mencionar una etiqueta de este tipo es utilizando la plantilla {{ tag }} . Esto produce un resultado como <nowiki>...</nowiki>. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 14:04, 28 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Cuarto Intercambio, 30 de abril
Hola DESiegel, ¡gracias por el agradecimiento por las exposiciones colectivas seleccionadas! Y bueno, me alegra que el editor de [[Carlos Enrique Prado Herrera]] haya añadido referencias (me pasé media hora intentando averiguarlo, antes de darme cuenta del encabezado de arriba...)
¿Está bien la referencia n.° 1 o debería quitarla por completo y dejarla en Enlaces externos? Esto ya estaba en el cuerpo del texto antes de que comenzara a editarlo...
Agregué cuatro exposiciones individuales más. No puedo encontrar una referencia para la exposición de Viena y los archivos de la Big Orbit Gallery no llegan tan lejos. ¿Puedo dejar al menos la de Viena, si no la otra?
En Lecturas adicionales: Marelys Valencia -- la sinopsis está en inglés, pero el artículo en sí está en español. Cuando escribí el ISBN, se generó automáticamente el doi/tr. Solo se permite un idioma, así que creo que debería quitar language=en y reemplazarlo por language=es -- ¿qué opinas? (Creo que dejo el doi/tr., ¿no?)
Me di cuenta de que en una de las páginas de los artistas las referencias tenían dos categorías: Referencias y Lecturas adicionales. Me gustaría hacer eso también, para que la página esté más ordenada. ¿Es tan fácil como hacer dos encabezados de nivel 3? Me doy cuenta de que tengo que anclar las referencias... Volveré a leer esa sección para asegurarme de no perderlas.
¿Qué es necesario para las colecciones? Busqué más de cuarenta artistas y, de todos los que tenían colecciones listadas, ninguno de ellos tenía notas a pie de página. En este punto, con todas las demás notas a pie de página, Leandro no está cometiendo un fraude al decir que está coleccionado entre estas instituciones. No sé qué se podría agregar, ¡excepto los contratos! (Y entiendo que los enlaces externos no están permitidos...) Pero no quiero que [[Theroadislong]] vuelva a objetar.
¡Has sido muy paciente conmigo al hacerme tantas preguntas! Lauraj210 ( discusión ) 01:41 30 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola de nuevo Lauraj210, me complace poder ayudar en lo que pueda. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 03:29 30 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
He dividido esta sección de mi página de discusión en subsecciones, ya que se estaba haciendo un poco larga. Para responder a sus diversos puntos, sin seguir el orden:
La referencia actual nº 1 del artículo, la "Guía de los documentos de Leandro Soto", me parece una fuente perfectamente aceptable, y la "nota biográfica" respalda de hecho varias afirmaciones del artículo. No veo ningún problema en ello.
Es más habitual colocar la sección "Lectura adicional" en una sección de segundo nivel propia, pero podría colocarse en una sección de tercer nivel paralela a la sección "Notas y referencias". O si pretende que los hechos de los elementos de la sección de lectura adicional se utilicen para respaldar el artículo en su conjunto, aunque no se especifiquen las afirmaciones, la sección debería titularse "Referencias generales" en su lugar, y definitivamente debería ser una sección de tercer nivel bajo el mismo encabezado de segundo nivel que las notas, que se muestran dondequiera que se coloque la plantilla {{ reflist }} .
La distinción es que las Notas o Referencias respaldan hechos específicos del artículo, mientras que las "Referencias generales" se consultaron y utilizaron para ayudar a construir el artículo, pero no se indican como respaldo de hechos específicos. "Lectura adicional" indica fuentes que un lector podría consultar de manera útil, pero que no se utilizaron para escribir el artículo, o no se utilizaron mucho. Cualquier fuente dada normalmente aparecerá solo en una de estas.
Sí, simplemente cambiar o agregar el encabezado de la sección hace que la sección pase a un nivel diferente.
Sí, en mi opinión, se debería utilizar la fuente de Marelys Valencia |language=es. Permite que la gente sepa que la información principal está en español. Es una situación un tanto extraña que el resumen esté en un idioma diferente al del artículo principal y no conozco una forma de indicarlo con exactitud.
No existe ninguna regla especial o específica para las "Colecciones". La regla general es que cualquier hecho en un artículo debe ser verificable , y que cualquier hecho controvertido o negativo sobre una persona viva debe estar respaldado directamente por una fuente citada. Lo mismo ocurre con cualquier cita directa. Cualquier hecho no citado sobre una persona viva puede ser cuestionado y, en ese caso, debe ser citado o eliminado. Sin embargo, cuando muchos hechos ya están respaldados por citas, es menos probable que se cuestionen otros de un tipo similar. Creo que puede dejar todos los elementos de la colección en el artículo hasta que alguien los cuestione. Recuerde que las fuentes fuera de línea son aceptables.
Espero que esto te sea de utilidad nuevamente. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 03:29 30 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Plantilla:¿Sabías que nominaciones/Zanco (cerámica)?
Los he aprobado. Se ven bien, Geni . Gracias. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 17:35 27 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ignorar el borrador de sandbox enviado para revisión
Creo que tal vez haya enviado accidentalmente el contenido de mi sandbox para que lo revises. (Envié una breve notificación al respecto, pero ahora puedo encontrarla). Si es así, ignóralo. Disculpas por las molestias y gracias por tu paciencia. DrLuthersAssistant ( discusión ) 20:03 29 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola, DrLuthersAssistant . Actualmente, tu sandbox no está enviado para revisión formal (bajo WP:AFC ) y, hasta donde puedo ver, nunca lo ha estado. En algún momento me pediste que lo revisara brevemente y comentara, pero eso es bastante diferente. Me parece un esquema y un plan bastante detallados para un artículo de reemplazo. Buena suerte. No dudes en hacer cualquier pregunta que puedas tener, ya sea aquí o en Teahouse . DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 02:43, 30 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Pregunta sobre las fotos
Hola David. Anoche recibí este mensaje en Wikipedia sobre la subida de una foto a la página de los tapices del Holocausto. Por favor, avísame si debo resolver este problema enviando la correspondencia por correo electrónico de Weinshall Liberman a: [email protected] ¿Esto resolverá el problema? George David NH ( discusión ) 14:56 30 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Problema de permisos de archivo con el archivo:El escondite de Ana Frank de la colección de tapices del Holocausto.jpg
Gracias por subir el archivo:El escondite de Ana Frank de la colección de tapices del Holocausto.jpg. Observé que, si bien proporcionaste una etiqueta de licencia de derechos de autor válida, no hay ninguna prueba de que el creador del archivo haya aceptado publicarlo bajo la licencia indicada.
Si usted es el propietario de los derechos de autor de este medio en su totalidad, pero lo ha publicado previamente en otro lugar (especialmente en línea), por favor
Haga una nota en el sitio de la publicación original en la que se permita la reutilización bajo la licencia CC-BY-SA u otra licencia libre aceptable (consulte esta lista); o Envíe un correo electrónico desde una dirección asociada con la publicación original a [email protected], indicando que es el propietario del material y su intención de publicarlo bajo una licencia libre. Puede encontrar un modelo de carta de permiso aquí. Si realiza este paso, añádalo a la página de descripción del archivo para evitar una eliminación prematura. Si no lo creó usted mismo en su totalidad, solicite a la persona que creó el archivo que realice uno de los dos pasos enumerados anteriormente o, si el propietario del archivo ya le ha dado su permiso por correo electrónico, reenvíe ese correo electrónico a [email protected].{{OTRS pending}}
Si cree que el medio cumple con los criterios de Wikipedia:Contenido no libre, utilice una etiqueta como o una de las otras etiquetas que aparecen en Wikipedia:Etiquetas de derechos de autor de archivos#Uso legítimo, y agregue una justificación para el uso del archivo en el artículo o los artículos donde se incluye. Consulte Wikipedia:Etiquetas de derechos de autor de archivos para obtener la lista completa de etiquetas de derechos de autor que puede utilizar.{{non-free fair use}}
Si has subido otros archivos, considera comprobar que has proporcionado pruebas de que los propietarios de los derechos de autor también han aceptado licenciar sus obras bajo las etiquetas que has proporcionado. Puedes encontrar una lista de los archivos que has creado en tu registro de subidas. Los archivos que no tengan pruebas de permiso pueden eliminarse una semana después de que se hayan etiquetado, como se describe en la sección F11 de los criterios para la eliminación rápida. Es posible que desees leer la política de uso de imágenes de Wikipedia. Si tienes alguna pregunta, pregúntala en la página de preguntas sobre derechos de autor de medios. Gracias. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:22, 28 de abril de 2018 (UTC) — Comentario anterior sin firmar añadido por George David NH ( discusión • contribuciones ) 10:56, 30 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ayuda a los novatos a crear una página
Hace un tiempo, manifestaste tu interés en crear una página para mí y esperaba que todavía estuvieras interesado. Solo necesitamos una página sencilla para que Facebook no nos marque como noticias falsas.
Este es el texto que publiqué en "artículos solicitados" que puede usarse como referencia:
Kentucky Today (un periódico diario en línea y servicio de noticias con sede en Louisville, Kentucky. El periódico contiene noticias originales, deportes e historias destacadas, además de noticias proporcionadas por Associated Press. El servicio de noticias Kentucky Today brinda cobertura de noticias estatales y gubernamentales, deportes universitarios y artículos destacados a 18 periódicos locales y regionales en todo Kentucky (dos fuentes enumeradas a continuación).
Un artículo reciente de Kentucky Today apareció en The Washington Times, Miami Herald, US News & World Report y muchos otros periódicos después de ser recogido por Associated Press.
Kentucky Today fue lanzado en noviembre de 2015 por la Convención Bautista de Kentucky "para ayudar a proporcionar a los bautistas de Kentucky noticias y perspectivas sobre los problemas sociales del día". El periódico en línea es gratuito y solo requiere registrarse para comentar las historias. Kentucky Today solicita un artículo breve en Wikipedia similar a los periódicos de letra pequeña ubicados cerca, como The Oldham Era y The Kentucky Standard.)
(Fuentes = sitio web de Kentucky Today: http://www.kentuckytoday.com
Ejemplos de periódicos que utilizan el servicio de noticias de Kentucky Today: "Advocate traslada el contenido de Accent y H&G a las secciones A" https://www.amnews.com/2017/03/11/advocate-moving-accent-hg-content-to-a-sections/, "Sun se asocia con Kentucky Today para noticias estatales y del Reino Unido" https://www.winchestersun.com/2017/03/10/sun-partners-with-kentucky-today-for-uk-state-news/
El Washington Times reimprime la historia: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/22/half-the-man-he-used-to-be-kentucky-pastor-drops-2/, US News & World Report reimprime la historia: https://www.usnews.com/news/healthiest-communities/articles/2018-04-22/half-the-man-he-used-to-be-kentucky-pastor-drops-240-pounds, el Miami Herald reimprime la historia: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/article209578009.html,
Lanzamiento de Kentucky Today: http://www.bpnews.net/45831/ky-baptists-elect-first-african-american-president
Ejemplos de lo que estamos buscando: la página de Wikipedia sobre la era Oldham: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EditPage/The_Oldham_Era, la página de Wikipedia sobre el estándar de Kentucky: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EditPage/The_Kentucky_Standard.
Entiendo que no podré editar, solo sugerir modificaciones, pero lo único que necesitamos es una página como cualquier otra organización de noticias.
Hola David. Te envié la foto del lugar donde se escondió Ana Frank de la página de los tapices del Holocausto, así como algunas para la página de Judith Weinshall Liberman en la que estaré trabajando, a [email protected].
El domingo, un administrador de la Wiki me dijo en mi página de discusión que la foto de Ana Frank se eliminaría en una semana. Así que envié esa foto y algunas otras como archivos adjuntos junto con correos electrónicos de Liberman confirmando que tenemos permiso para usarlas. Por favor, confirmen que he tomado las medidas adecuadas para que la foto se mantenga en la página. Es confuso. El aspecto fotográfico de Wikipedia es probablemente lo que más necesito entender en este momento. George David NH ( discusión ) 23:06 1 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
George David NH , veo que hay una copia en Commons, en File:Anne Frank's Hiding Place.jpg, así como una copia en File:Anne Frank's Hiding Place from the Holocaust Wall Hangings Collection.jpg en en-Wikipedia. Volvería a enviar copias del correo electrónico de permiso, que creo que debería ser suficiente, tanto a [email protected] como a [email protected], y mencionaría los nombres de ambos archivos en el correo electrónico. Además, estoy enviando a AntiCompositeNumber y Magog the Ogre a esta discusión. Si bien conozco las reglas generales, no trabajo mucho con derechos de autor de imágenes, y esos editores probablemente puedan ayudarnos a comprender qué es lo que aún falta, si es que falta algo, para que el permiso otorgado por el artista Liberman para esa imagen quede debidamente claro. Los correos electrónicos que me reenviaste parecían suficientes, pero puede que haya algún aspecto que falte.
Eventualmente, querremos tener solo una copia de la imagen, preferiblemente en Commons. Probablemente se deba editar el artículo para asegurarse de que se use el nombre de archivo de Commons. Entonces, la eliminación de la copia aquí en en no importará.
Me disculpo por no haber respondido a tu mensaje anterior con más prontitud. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 23:43 1 may 2018 (UTC) @ AntiCompositeNumber : DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 00:04 2 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias, David. Volveré a enviar los correos electrónicos como me recomiendas. No te preocupes por la rapidez. Solo aprecio el hecho de saber que puedo contar contigo para responderme y que me indicarás la dirección correcta. George David NH ( discusión ) 23:52 1 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
He comprobado, George David NH , y el artículo Holocaust Wall Hangings ya está usando la copia en Commons, que parece tener un límite de tiempo más largo para solucionar los problemas de permisos. La copia en en-Wikipedia ahora parece ser redundante en cualquier caso. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 00:00, 2 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Debo añadir, George David NH , que los tapices del Holocausto han sido aprobados como un elemento de ¿Sabías que?, y que aparecerá un enlace a él en la página principal de Wikipedia en algún momento futuro aún no determinado. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 00:02 2 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias, David. No está mal tener un ¿Sabías qué? aprobado por primera vez. Te debo una. George David NH ( discusión ) 00:45 2 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Recibo un crédito DYK cuando se publica, como nominador y coautor. En realidad, George David NH , muchos artículos nuevos decentes pueden calificar para DYK con un poco de trabajo adicional. Los estándares son significativamente más bajos que para GA. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 00:52, 2 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Vale, tiene sentido. Pronto empezaré a trabajar en la página biográfica de Weinshall Liberman, así que me pondré en contacto contigo. Me gustaría producir con el tiempo un trabajo de calidad GA. George David NH ( discusión ) 01:53 2 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Jonathan Thompson (presentador de televisión)
Usted rechazó la eliminación rápida de este artículo con el argumento de que la AfD no parecía estar describiendo el artículo recreado, presumiblemente porque G4 excluye "páginas que no son sustancialmente idénticas a la versión eliminada". El editor que lo recreó afirmó que lo restauraron a partir de un espejo (aunque uno que tenía 18 meses cuando se eliminó el artículo) y le insto a que vuelva a mirar la versión eliminada porque creo que todavía era sustancialmente idéntica (estaba en Jonathan Thompson ; a diferencia de usted, no puedo mirarla, pero hay un espejo contemporáneo aquí).
Si aún así concluye que está bien, supongo que al haber sido copiado de un espejo ahora cae en el error de WP:RUD y en su lugar se debería restaurar la página original, o al menos se deberían fusionar los historiales, para solucionar el problema de atribución que existe ahora.
Gracias por la información, Dorsetonian, tendré que investigar más sobre eso. Debido a cómo se manejó la eliminación y el movimiento de una página dab, no pude ver fácilmente una copia de la versión tal como estaba cuando AfD la eliminó, por lo que mi base real para rechazar la revisión rápida es que las razones indicadas en la discusión de AfD no se aplican a la versión recién creada, lo que significaría que las versiones no eran "sustancialmente idénticas". En general, una nueva versión que aborda significativamente las razones de la eliminación no se eliminará a través de G4. Sin embargo, si esto se toma directamente de un espejo, a menos que se haya editado en el proceso, eso comienza a verse incorrecto. Investigaré esto más a fondo, pero no ahora, probablemente dentro de las próximas 24 horas. Entiendo tus puntos sobre la atribución. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 06:50, 2 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Comparar con [3] - la última diferencia antes del cierre de AFD. Es una publicación clara. Además, la lógica del nominador no debería tener ningún impacto en si una página cumple con G4 o no. SmartSE ( discusión ) 08:05, 2 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Página wiki de la compañía de seguros Root
Estimado DESiegel
La página que creé recientemente (Root Insurance Company) fue eliminada por contenido promocional por usted y luego protegida para que otro administrador no la vuelva a crear. Le escribo para averiguar cómo puedo a) hacer que el contenido sea menos promocional y b) que un administrador la cree o recuperar los permisos para hacerlo yo mismo.
Root Insurance es una organización notable que ofrece seguros basados principalmente en datos de conducción recopilados desde un teléfono inteligente; es importante que el público en general esté informado sobre el rápido progreso del mercado de seguros y del mundo tecnológico.
El artículo no promociona el negocio, sino que explica de forma sencilla qué es la compañía de seguros de automóviles y en qué se diferencia de otras en el mercado. He revisado la redacción que puede haber parecido promocional en mi primera carga y he respaldado todas las estadísticas y cotizaciones con citas externas confiables. De hecho, he utilizado páginas de Wikipedia ya aprobadas con contenido similar como punto de referencia. Por lo tanto, estoy muy confundido sobre por qué se ha eliminado dos veces.
¿Puedes proporcionarme comentarios específicos sobre las áreas del artículo que parecen de naturaleza promocional para que pueda hacer ajustes? ¿O puedes indicarme dónde puedo recibir más comentarios? (Ya leí las páginas de Wikipedia sobre contenido promocional y siento que seguí las reglas). Además, ¿cómo puedo revocar mi pérdida de publicación en el sitio? Gracias por tu ayuda; sin duda deseo seguir las reglas y la estructura de Wikipedia.
Atentamente, Sara Starnes ( discusión ) 13:57 4 may 2018 (UTC)Sara Starnes [ responder ]
Hola, Sara Starnes . En la versión eliminada más recientemente, frases como la primera aseguradora del país totalmente basada en dispositivos móviles (citada en un comunicado de prensa) Root se convirtió en la primera compañía de seguros del país en ofrecer una reducción de tarifas a los conductores de Tesla que usan la función AutoPilot. (también citado en un comunicado de prensa) La aplicación de Root fue el primer dispositivo de seguimiento UBI que se instala automáticamente con la descarga de la aplicación y no requiere un dispositivo externo para conectarlo al automóvil (citado en una noticia que se lee como un comunicado de prensa reeditado), y en lugar de ofrecer descuentos UBI como una opción después de que los clientes ya están establecidos,[12] Root usa UBI durante la prueba de manejo para determinar tarifas basadas principalmente en el comportamiento de manejo para cada póliza (según la misma noticia) tienen un tono muy promocional, en mi opinión. Gran parte del artículo parece una lista de puntos de venta o un folleto de la empresa, no un artículo neutral basado en hechos. Lea nuestra guía sobre promoción en artículos .
Los artículos de Wikipedia deben basarse en gran medida en fuentes confiables publicadas e independientes . Esto no incluye comunicados de prensa o entrevistas con empleados de la empresa, o "noticias" claramente derivadas en gran parte de comunicados de prensa con poca o ninguna verificación o informe independiente. Para que haya un artículo sobre una empresa, debe haber múltiples fuentes independientes que analicen la empresa en profundidad; consulte WP:CORPDEPTH y nuestra guía sobre la notabilidad de las empresas . Tenga en cuenta que en Wikipedia, la notabilidad se utiliza en un sentido especial. No significa importancia, sino más bien el grado en que terceros no involucrados han tomado nota de un tema, generalmente escribiendo y publicando sobre él en fuentes confiables.
No sé si trabajas para Root o si tienes alguna relación con ella. Si es así, debes seguir las instrucciones de WP:COI para revelar un conflicto de intereses y, si recibes o esperas recibir un pago o compensación por editar sobre la empresa, debes seguir estrictamente las reglas de WP:PAID . Se trata de una política que se aplica de manera muy estricta aquí.
Si cree que se puede crear una versión neutral y no promocional de un artículo sobre Root, le recomiendo encarecidamente que lo haga como borrador y obtenga una revisión antes de intentar convertir el texto en un artículo en vivo. Dado que el artículo ha sido protegido contra la recreación, dicha revisión será necesaria para crear cualquier artículo sobre el tema. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 15:41, 4 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
A continuación se indican algunos pasos que, si se siguen, suelen producir buenos resultados:
En tercer lugar, si tiene alguna conexión o afiliación con el tema, infórmelo de acuerdo con nuestra guía sobre conflictos de intereses . Si ha recibido o espera recibir un pago por realizar ediciones, o las está haciendo como parte de su trabajo, infórmelo de acuerdo con las estrictas reglas de la Divulgación de contribuciones pagadas . Esto es absolutamente obligatorio; omitirlo puede resultar en que se le bloquee la posibilidad de realizar más ediciones.
En cuarto lugar, reúna fuentes. Necesita fuentes independientes , publicadas profesionalmente y fiables que analicen el tema con cierto detalle. Si no puede encontrar varias de estas fuentes, deténgase ; ¡no se creará un artículo! Las fuentes NO necesitan estar en línea o en inglés, aunque es útil que al menos algunas lo estén. La parte "independiente" es vital. Wikipedia no considera fuentes independientes como comunicados de prensa o noticias basadas en comunicados de prensa, o cualquier cosa publicada por el tema en sí o por un afiliado del tema. Tampoco se prefiere la cobertura estrictamente local. Los periódicos o revistas regionales o nacionales, los libros publicados por editoriales convencionales (no autoeditados) o las revistas académicas suelen ser buenos. También lo son los equivalentes en línea de estos. (Las fuentes adicionales pueden verificar declaraciones particulares, pero no analizar el tema en detalle. Pero esas fuentes detalladas significativas son necesarias primero).
Sexto, utilice las fuentes recopiladas anteriormente (y otras fuentes que pueda encontrar en el camino) para escribir el artículo. Cite todas las afirmaciones significativas a las fuentes. No exprese opiniones ni juicios, a menos que se atribuyan explícitamente a personas o entidades nombradas, preferiblemente en una cita directa, y se cite una fuente. No utilice exageraciones ni lenguaje de marketing. Proporcione números de página, fechas, autores y títulos de las fuentes en la medida en que estén disponibles. Siempre es necesario un título.
Séptimo, cuando (o quizás si) tu borrador es rechazado, presta atención a los comentarios del revisor, corrige el borrador y vuelve a enviarlo. Durante todo este proceso, si te encuentras con algún obstáculo de edición irresoluble o no puedes comprender algún problema de edición, no dudes en publicar una solicitud en la Casa de Té o en el servicio de asistencia y preguntar a los habituales. Repite esto hasta que el borrador pase la revisión.
Felicitaciones, ahora has creado un artículo válido de Wikipedia . DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 15:41 4 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias, DESiegel , por tu detallada respuesta; te lo agradezco mucho. Reescribiré el artículo y lo enviaré como borrador.
Notificación de enlace de desambiguación para el 5 de mayo
Un proceso automatizado ha detectado que cuando editaste recientemente Terry M. McGovern , agregaste un enlace que apunta a la página de desambiguación Nueva York (verificar para confirmar | corregir con el solucionador Dab).
Hola, espero que todo esté bien, soy el representante artístico de Omar El Abd (omrr). Recientemente, ambos artículos fueron eliminados. Me gustaría aclarar que omrr es el nombre artístico de Omar El Abd. Son la misma persona. Pensé que usar el nombre real y hacer referencia al nombre artístico era la mejor práctica. Apreciaría que me hicieras saber cómo mejorar/solucionar el problema. Gracias, que tengas un buen día. — Comentario anterior sin firmar agregado por Wisemenandthepainters ( discusión • contribuciones ) 07:15, 5 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Bueno, HorsesAreNice , primero debes decidir si me quieres como mentor o adoptante.
Eso significa que aceptas que planeas permanecer activo en Wikipedia al menos por un tiempo, que aceptas intentar ser el mejor editor que puedas y escuchar y considerar seriamente cualquier consejo que te dé sobre cómo actuar como editor de Wikipedia, incluso o quizás especialmente si es un consejo que no quieres escuchar al principio.
Si me acepta, aceptaré sus preguntas y las responderé lo más pronto y de la manera más útil posible. También me comprometo a estar atento a sus ediciones y, si veo algún problema, a informarle y aconsejarle qué hacer o no hacer para evitar o reducir cualquier posible problema. Me comprometo a escucharlo, a tratar de comprender su punto de vista y, si es posible, a defenderlo si tiene una disputa en Wikipedia.
En todas esas situaciones, le daré el mejor consejo que pueda. Intentaré tener en mente su mejor interés, así como el bien del proyecto, en todas nuestras interacciones. No solo seré cortés sino también amable, hasta el límite de mis capacidades, según lo permita la situación. Pero le diré la verdad si creo que ha hecho o está haciendo algo imprudente.
Aceptarás hacerme preguntas si no estás seguro en alguna situación relacionada con Wikipedia.
Más allá de eso, podemos definir la relación como queramos. Podemos optar o no por trabajar juntos en la edición de artículos u otras páginas. Si hay algo que desees en particular de esa relación, por favor, menciónalo y veremos qué podemos hacer.
Por supuesto, cualquiera de nosotros puede terminar la relación en cualquier momento.
¿Estás interesado en entablar una relación de este tipo en esos términos? Puedes leer sobre mí en mi página de usuario y sin duda me habrás visto dando consejos en The Teahouse , por lo que tienes una idea de cómo soy en ese papel. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 20:34 6 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Necesito un mentor.
Hola señor,
Soy un nuevo usuario de Wikipedia y mi sueño es mejorar el contenido de Wikipedia y, probablemente, algún día convertirme en administrador. Quiero que me adopten y les agradecería que me adopten.
Hola, Jerusalem666 . Veo que ya estás haciendo algunas contribuciones pequeñas pero útiles. Lee mis comentarios sobre la tutoría de HorsesAreNice en la sección anterior y ve si aceptarías un acuerdo similar. Si lo deseas, publica aquí un mensaje para decirlo.
Tenga en cuenta que, en la actualidad, se necesitan al menos uno o dos años de contribución constante para convertirse en administrador. Tampoco es algo tan importante, por lo que espero que se concentre más en realizar contribuciones valiosas, tal vez en promover artículos específicos para GA o incluso FA, u otros objetivos en Wikipedia. Si lo hace, es posible que el puesto de administrador llegue con el tiempo sin que se lo espere.
Ah, y si tienes alguna cuestión particular que plantear o alguna pregunta que hacer, hazlo.
¿Qué dices? DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 00:22 7 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias DESiegel . Estoy muy interesado en un arreglo similar al del usuario - HorsesAreNice. Estoy dispuesto a escuchar tus consejos en todo momento.
Muy bien, Jerusalem666 , ahora somos mentor y aprendiz. He marcado nuestras páginas de usuario como corresponde. Por favor, pregúntame cualquier pregunta que tengas. ¿Qué tipo de proyecto o edición estás planeando actualmente, si es que tienes alguno? DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 04:00, 7 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias a DESiegel por adoptarme. Actualmente, estoy haciendo pequeñas modificaciones en las páginas de Wikipedia para familiarizarme con el sistema. Pedí sugerencias de páginas para editar y me las proporcionaron. Tendré preguntas en un par de días. Jerusalem666 ( discusión ) 09:54 7 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Discusión del usuario:Alessio1233
Solo para que lo sepas, procesé este desbloqueo porque el administrador que lo bloqueó dijo que estaba de acuerdo con eso hace unos días, y yo pensaba lo mismo que tú. No pensé que te molestaría, pero aun así me gusta avisarle a la gente cuando ya están involucrados. Espero que todo esté bien . TonyBallioni ( discusión ) 02:53, 8 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola David. Estoy trabajando en la página de JWL y tengo dos preguntas que espero puedas responder. Recuerdo que dijiste que Google es quien decide lo que se publica en su sitio, pero quiero estar seguro de que no tengo que hacer nada por mi parte para resolver estos problemas: 1. Cuando hago una búsqueda en Google de "Judith Weinshall Liberman", este es el primer enlace que aparece: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EditPage/File:Judith_Weinshall_Liberman.jpg ¿Hay alguna forma de eliminarlo? 2. La página de los tapices del Holocausto todavía no aparece en ninguna parte en una búsqueda de Google. Todavía me lleva a 2 páginas de archivos de imágenes eliminados y una página para la pieza "Manos arriba". Gracias George David NH ( discusión ) 01:26, 9 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
No, George David NH , Wikipedia no tiene control sobre cuándo o cómo Google indexa o no una página, excepto que algunas páginas están marcadas con una bandera "NOINDEX", que Google generalmente respeta. Las páginas nuevas normalmente están marcadas así durante 90 días, o hasta que hayan sido revisadas por la patrulla de páginas nuevas, lo que ocurra primero. Acabo de comprobarlo y no hay tal bandera en Holocaust Wall Hangings . Una cosa que podría ayudar: si hay otros artículos desde los que se puede hacer un enlace legítimo al artículo, deberían estarlo. Google indexa páginas en gran parte siguiendo enlaces para simular un usuario que navega, según tengo entendido, y cuantos más enlaces entrantes haya a una página, más probable es que Google encuentre uno e indexe la página. En la parte inferior de una búsqueda de Google hay un formulario de comentarios, donde los usuarios pueden reaccionar a los resultados de la búsqueda. No sé cuánta atención presta Google a dichos comentarios. Google tiene cuidado de no proporcionar muchos detalles sobre cómo decide qué páginas indexar o con qué nivel, para no ayudar a aquellos que podrían querer jugar con el sistema. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribuciones 01:48, 9 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Cuando tengas un minuto, ¿podrías echarle un vistazo al borrador de JWLiberman en el que estoy trabajando (estoy rehaciendo toda la página basándome en lo que sé ahora sobre cómo escribir para Wikipedia)? Sus padres eran bastante conocidos, así que creo que debería mencionarlos, pero ¿cómo los incorporo a la página? ¿O debería omitirlos por completo? No creo que una sección de "Familia" sea lo que recomendarías, pero no estoy seguro de dónde más hacer referencia a sus padres. El resto de la página se rehará por completo una vez que descubra dónde/si mencionar a sus padres. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Judith_Weinshall_Liberman&action=edit George David NH ( discusión ) 23:35 9 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Podrías combinar gran parte del contenido actual de "Familia" con la primera oración de "Educación" y llamarla "Vida temprana". En ese caso, agregaría una oración que registre el año y el lugar de su nacimiento. Sin embargo, en ese caso, la oración sobre su matrimonio no encaja bien. O podrías mantenerla como "Familia" o llamarla "Vida personal". En el último caso, la oración sobre su nacimiento todavía podría agregarse allí, en el primero, probablemente debería ir en una sección separada. La cantidad de contenido que tienes ahora sobre sus padres y familiares es bastante buena, no debería haber mucho más a menos que tengamos comentarios de terceros sobre cómo sus vidas afectaron la de ella. El artículo debería centrarse claramente en ella, no en los miembros de su familia; he visto algunos que dan la impresión de que el artículo está tratando de aprovecharse de la notoriedad de otras personas, en particular artículos sobre el cónyuge o la pareja romántica de una celebridad del pop. No queremos que parezca eso. Me inclinaría a omitir los nombres de pila de sus hijos; hay precedentes en ambos casos.
¿Estoy en lo cierto al afirmar que trabajó como abogada durante algún tiempo después de asistir a la facultad de derecho y antes de estudiar arte? Si es así, eso debería quedar claro.
Quitaría su lugar de nacimiento de la sección principal. De hecho, eso es lo que voy a hacer ahora mismo.
Recuerde que el |website=parámetro de una plantilla de cita nunca debe ser la URL completa. Debe ser el nombre del sitio y, solo si no hay otro nombre, el dominio web. Recuerde proporcionar información sobre el autor y la fecha cuando esté disponible. No incluya información de referencia en la URL de una cita; edítela.
Recuerda seguir añadiendo citas a medida que avanzas. He realizado algunos cambios pequeños.
Por favor, enlaza a páginas con enlaces Wiki, como Borrador:Judith Weinshall Liberman, no con URLs, y especialmente no URLs que dejen a uno en modo de edición.
Por cierto, ¿sus libros infantiles también tratan sobre el Holocausto? La forma en que está redactada la frase principal parece dar a entender eso. Si no es así, debería reformularse un poco. Si lo es, tal vez debería ser más explícito.
Esto parece bueno hasta ahora. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 01:29 10 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Muy buena información, David. Seguiré tu consejo. Gracias. Mi única pregunta es con respecto a esta afirmación que has hecho, ya que no entiendo lo que quieres decir: Por favor, enlaza a páginas con enlaces Wiki, como Borrador:Judith Weinshall Liberman, no con URL, y especialmente no con URL que dejen a uno en modo de edición. George David NH ( discusión ) 01:37 10 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Para decirme dónde estaba el borrador, en tu mensaje anterior en este hilo, George David NH , incluiste la URL https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Judith_Weinshall_Liberman&action=editen lugar del enlace wiki [[Draft:Judith Weinshall Liberman]]. El "&action=edit" abre la página en modo de edición, como si hubiera ido allí y hecho clic en "editar". No suele ser una buena idea. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 01:43 10 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Vale, lo entiendo. Entiendo lo que quieres decir. George David NH ( discusión ) 01:50 10 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
( editar conflicto ) George David NH , actualmente tienes una cita en https://decordova.org/art/ sobre la oración Weinshall Liberman estudió pintura, escultura y otros medios artísticos en el Art Institute of Boston, la School of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Boston University College of Fine Arts, Massachusetts College of Art y la DeCordova Museum School . Pero ese sitio simplemente describe la DeCordova Museum School, no confirma que Weinshall Liberman haya ido allí. La cita debería ser a una fuente, posiblemente su autobiografía, que diga que asistió. Si la escuela ha publicado una lista de exalumnos, esa también sería una fuente razonable, pero una autobiografía está bien para ese tipo de hecho no controvertido.
Si se combinan la familia y la educación bajo un mismo título, yo sugeriría "Biografía" en lugar de "Vida temprana", ya que al final de la facultad de derecho y de la facultad de arte esto no es tan temprano. "La vida temprana generalmente transcurre durante la escuela secundaria o una licenciatura. Y, por cierto, si sabemos qué títulos, si es que obtuvo alguno, obtuvo en esas escuelas, se podrían incluir, particularmente los más altos. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 01:55 10 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Hola! No estoy seguro de cómo funciona esto, pero vi que estás dispuesto a acoger a los novatos bajo tu protección. Me encantaría recibir orientación para comprender Wikipedia más allá de los conceptos básicos que he estado haciendo. Ponte en contacto conmigo, con la esperanza de crecer más allá de la CE, la edición de enlaces y la creación básica de páginas. ¡Gracias! TheOneWorkingAccount ( discusión ) 07:02 10 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola, TheOneWorkingAccount . Lee la sección #¿Qué hago como adoptado? arriba y la sección #Necesito un mentor arriba, en la que analizo lo que veo como una relación de adopción/mentoría. Luego, echa un vistazo a las secciones #Judith Weinshall Liberman, #Tu consejo y ayuda y #Leandro Soto Ortiz para ver una relación de este tipo en funcionamiento. Si te gusta lo que ves, dímelo y podremos confirmar una relación.
Por favor, cuéntame qué tipo de cosas has estado haciendo, qué tipo de cosas esperas/planeas hacer y qué problemas has tenido, si es que los tienes. Haré todo lo posible por ayudarte. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 16:20 10 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola DESiegel . Sí, he revisado las secciones. Básicamente, he estado haciendo pequeñas contribuciones, pero quiero hacer más. Sin embargo, simplemente me quedo atascado preguntándome qué hacer exactamente para crecer. Con frecuencia reviso el Feed de páginas nuevas para ver qué puedo hacer, pero muchas son cosas que no tengo derecho a hacer (por ejemplo, eliminar artículos que claramente no deberían estar allí y otras tareas similares) y muchas otras que no puedo entender. Me encargo de pequeños trabajos, como la lista de páginas que necesitan cuadros de información y los agrego. Pero necesito orientación sobre cómo crecer y cómo llevar a cabo tareas más significativas. TheOneWorkingAccount ( discusión ) 12:25, 11 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Todas estas son excelentes cosas para hacer, TheOneWorkingAccount . No te preocupes demasiado por los derechos: si ves una página que crees que debería eliminarse, etiquétala para su eliminación propuesta o, si y SÓLO si claramente cumple con uno de los criterios, etiquétala para su eliminación rápida . O simplemente etiquétala para cualquier problema que veas, como notoriedad o fuentes insuficientes. ¿Ya has habilitado Twinkle ? Creo que te resultará MUY útil con ese etiquetado.
Te insto a que empieces a intentar crear más contenido. Busca un esbozo o un artículo breve y poco desarrollado sobre un tema que te interese. (Si no se te ocurre ninguno, puedo ofrecerte algunas sugerencias, en particular si me dices algún tema general que te interese). Puede ser un esbozo que ya exista desde hace tiempo o uno creado recientemente a partir del feed de la nueva página. Sin embargo, si eliges un artículo creado recientemente, ten cuidado con los conflictos con el usuario que lo creó y que podría estar trabajando para desarrollarlo más. Puede ser mejor elegir un artículo más antiguo. Una vez que lo hayas elegido, busca fuentes confiables adicionales y úsalas junto con las fuentes ya citadas para ampliar y mejorar el artículo. Elimina también cualquier contenido promocional o no respaldado. No elijas un tema muy controvertido. ¿Qué opinas?
Otra cosa que podrías hacer es empezar a leer y quizás comentar las discusiones en WP:AFD . Lee algunas y trata de dar tu opinión sobre por qué el artículo debería o no eliminarse. Recuerda ser WP:CIVIL y basar tu opinión en la política de Wikipedia, no solo en WP:ILIKEIT o viceversa.
¿Deberíamos marcarnos como mentor y aprendiz, entonces? DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 15:13 11 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Echa un vistazo a esta serie de ediciones de Mimi Mondal , que editaste recientemente, TheOneWorkingAccount . Este es un comienzo para agregar contenido a un borrador. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 15:55 11 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias DESiegel , sí, ¡definitivamente puedes marcarnos donde sea que aparezca! Ya he habilitado Twinkle y espero poder aprender a usarlo. Sí, la creación de contenido es definitivamente lo que busco hacer, creé dos páginas solicitadas de algunos Wikiproyectos. Sin embargo, trabajo mejor cuando me dan tareas, así que si me indicas algunos artículos que pueda desarrollar, sería genial. Estoy particularmente interesado en la televisión y el cine en inglés, y quiero desarrollar páginas para varias personalidades de diferentes industrias, especialmente indias (entretenimiento, negocios, etc.). Muchas gracias por la ayuda, se lo agradezco mucho. TheOneWorkingAccount ( discusión ) 16:51, 11 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Jack.org
Hola DESiegel . No estoy seguro de cómo sacar esto adelante, pero noté este artículo que necesita una limpieza importante. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EditPage/Jack.org. Supongo que cosas como su declaración de misión no encajarían, y CE necesitaría reducir su tono publicitario. ¿Podrías orientarme de alguna manera para que este artículo esté a la altura de los estándares? TheOneWorkingAccount ( discusión ) 10:30 16 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Buen hallazgo, TheOneWorkingAccount . Hay varias cosas que podrían hacerse de manera útil. Primero, y más mecánica, obtener los metadatos de citación adecuados en las fuentes, como los cambios que hice en esta serie de ediciones. Eso ayudará a indicar quién escribió las fuentes y si alguna está relacionada con la organización. Segundo, busque y agregue fuentes adicionales de alta calidad (si existen) y agregue cualquier dato derivado adecuadamente de esas fuentes. Tercero, elimine cualquier lenguaje exagerado o promocional. Cuarto, intente evaluar las fuentes existentes previamente y vea si alguna de ellas no es confiable. Si hay un caso claro, elimínelos con un resumen de la edición que explique por qué. Si hay alguna duda, publique en Talk:Jack.org una lista de las fuentes que parecen menos que completamente confiables. Quinto, evalúe la notoriedad general, a la luz de WP:ORG . Si parece cuestionable, después de buscar fuentes adicionales, etiquete el artículo como que ha debatido la notoriedad con brillo, o inicie un AfD si la falta de notoriedad parece muy clara. Si tiene dudas, simplemente etiquete. Si tienes alguna pregunta sobre esto, pregúntame aquí. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 17:37 16 may 2018 (UTC) Ah, por cierto, es mejor proporcionar enlaces como [[Jack.org]]que como https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EditPage/Jack.orgen el futuro. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 17:37 16 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias DESiegel . He empezado a corregir los metadatos de las citas, también podré añadir fuentes de alta calidad como has mencionado. Es en la evaluación de las fuentes donde preveo quedarme atascado, sin embargo, las publicaré en la página de discusión como has sugerido. ¡Deséame suerte! TheOneWorkingAccount ( discusión ) 10:16 19 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Prerna Kohli
Hola DESiegel . ¿Puedes ayudarme a limpiar esta página, Prerna Kohli ? Veo que es de naturaleza publicitaria y creo que toda la sección sobre "En los medios" es un poco excesiva. Pero, si bien me siento cómodo arreglando códigos, etc., esto es más subjetivo y no quisiera eliminar nada que no deba. ¡Avísame, gracias! TheOneWorkingAccount ( discusión ) 17:52, 21 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola , DESiegel . No quiero ser una molestia, pero me preguntaba si podrías ayudarme con esto. TheOneWorkingAccount ( discusión ) 08:26 30 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias por el recordatorio sobre Prerna Kohli , TheOneWorkingAccount . He realizado varias modificaciones a ese artículo y haré más, pero no tengo tiempo esta mañana (estoy aquí). La clave es leer las fuentes proporcionadas y eliminar todo lo que no esté respaldado por ellas. Cualquiera que desee volver a la página anterior puede hacerlo y, a continuación, se pueden analizar las fuentes en la página de discusión según WP:BRD . En mi opinión, mejorar los metadatos de la fuente también es útil, ya que añade contexto. Siéntete libre de realizar modificaciones o de comentar más en la página de discusión del artículo. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 12:45, 30 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
No quiero apresurarte en absoluto, DESiegel . Es solo porque siento que podré aprender al ver cómo se corrigen los errores. Ya comenté en la página de discusión sobre toda la sección "en los medios", que dudo que deba estar en la página. Solo quería comprobar: si la información proviene de una fuente confiable, ¿siempre merece estar en el artículo, incluso si es promocional? TheOneWorkingAccount ( discusión ) 17:10, 31 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
No, TheOneWorkingAccount , no incluimos todos los datos que se pueden obtener, o nuestros artículos serían en muchos casos enormes. No queremos dar una atención o prominencia excesiva a un punto de vista en particular, especialmente a un punto de vista minoritario o marginal . No queremos incluir detalles no enciclopédicos; por ejemplo, normalmente no incluimos la dirección postal o el número de teléfono de una empresa, aunque podemos incluir un enlace a su sitio web oficial que sí incluye dicha información. Consulte WP:NOT para obtener más información sobre esto. Lo que se debe incluir es una cuestión de criterio y consenso. Sin embargo, los hechos significativos que se han discutido en fuentes independientes confiables generalmente se incluyen, incluso si son positivos y podrían verse como promocionales. El artículo debe reflejar la variedad de fuentes confiables disponibles y las opiniones expresadas en dichas fuentes. Si muchas fuentes tienen cosas positivas que decir sobre un tema, entonces nuestro artículo puede tener un tono bastante positivo, siempre que sea factual y no elogie en la voz de Wikipedia sino solo en opiniones explícitamente atribuidas a otros. Cuando una persona es, en efecto, "famosa por ser famosa", como lo son hoy en día varias figuras de los medios, informamos lo que las fuentes dicen sobre esa persona, honestamente, sin blanquear ni demonizar. Tenga en cuenta que el estándar de notabilidad se utiliza para determinar si Wikipedia tendrá o no un artículo sobre un tema. Pero una vez que se juzga que un tema es notable, los hechos individuales sobre ese tema no se juzgan según el estándar de notabilidad para decidir si se mencionarán o no. En cambio, se juzgan por las fuentes, la relevancia, el peso debido y el sentido común, y cualquier desacuerdo debe resolverse por consenso, en la página de discusión del artículo si es posible, o en resolución de disputas si es necesario. Tenga en cuenta también que, aunque los artículos de Wikipedia deben ser neutrales , nuestras fuentes no necesitan serlo y, a menudo, no lo son, siempre que sean confiables. No dude en examinar mis ediciones hasta ahora sobre este tema. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 17:35, 31 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Lo entiendo DESiegel . En este caso, ¿sería correcto eliminar toda la sección "en los medios" del artículo? Porque eso simplemente enumera los temas sobre los que ha concedido entrevistas y a qué publicaciones. Nunca he visto eso en una página. ¿O el proceso correcto sería esperar hasta que alguien responda en la página de discusión? TheOneWorkingAccount ( discusión ) 07:48, 3 de junio de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Hola! No quiero ser una molestia, pero ¿podrías orientarme sobre lo anterior? ¡Gracias! TheOneWorkingAccount ( discusión ) 07:22 17 ago 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Sabías que los tapices del Holocausto son una buena idea?
El 10 de mayo de 2018 , ¿Sabías que? se actualizó con un dato del artículo Holocaust Wall Hangings , que usted creó recientemente, amplió sustancialmente o llevó al estado de buen artículo. El hecho era ... que Holocaust Wall Hangings (ejemplo en la imagen) son una serie de pancartas de tela creadas entre 1988 y 2002 que ilustran la difícil situación del pueblo judío y otras minorías durante el Holocausto . La discusión y revisión de la nominación se puede ver en Template:Did you know nominations/Holocaust Wall Hangings . Puede verificar cuántas visitas a la página recibió el artículo mientras estaba en la página principal ( aquí se explica cómo , Holocaust Wall Hangings) , y puede agregarse a la página de estadísticas si el total es superior a 5000. Finalmente, si conoce un dato interesante de otro artículo creado recientemente, no dude en sugerirlo en la página de discusión de ¿Sabías que ?.
Como describí en mi pregunta del tema de ayuda, ayudé en la gestión de esta banda y eliminé la información FALSA. Las fuentes que se citaron NO son fuentes confiables solo porque se publicaron en Internet. Un caballero llamado Ryan Crase solía ayudar a esta banda hace más de 6 años y se ha atribuido falsamente numerosos elogios de la banda. Además, intentó secuestrar el sitio web de la banda y se vio obligado a liberar el control después de una demanda. La única información válida a continuación es el nombre del lugar donde la banda realizó su primer espectáculo. Nos gustaría que esto se elimine de forma permanente y actualizaremos con hechos precisos pronto. Si necesita mi dirección de correo electrónico, afiliación a la empresa, dirección de correo electrónico del fundador de la banda, etc., estaré encantado de proporcionársela.
Esto tiene que desaparecer:
Después de grabar un álbum bajo su propio nombre, Seven Deadly Sins, Cook comenzó a grabar en Memphis, Tennessee con Matt Chamberlain y Ben Shepherd de Soundgarden. [4] Inmediatamente después de terminar en Memphis, Ben Shepherd le presentó a Cook a su amigo, Ryan Crase, quien eventualmente convencería a Cook de mudarse a Seattle y tomar el papel de su manager. Cuando Cook llegó a los Estados Unidos, Crase sabía que se necesitaría un nombre de banda adecuado para ayudar a desarrollar aún más el proyecto. Una tarde, mientras escuchaba el álbum, "LOVE" de The Cult, a Crase se le ocurrió el nombre "Reignwolf" cuando notó la lista de canciones en la parte posterior de la portada del álbum que presenta la canción "Mother Wolf" que aparece justo encima de la canción "Rain". Inmediatamente se alteró la ortografía para causar impacto. El primer espectáculo oficial de Cook bajo el apodo de Reignwolf se estrenó días después, en The Sunset Tavern en Ballard, Washington. Era solo la segunda vez que tocaba con su nueva banda con Joseph y Stitch, a quienes Crase le había presentado a Cook solo una semana antes de ese espectáculo. [4] Cook actúa tanto como una banda de un solo hombre acompañando su guitarra con un bombo,[5] y con el bajista David "Stitch" Rapaport y el baterista Joseph Braley.[4]
¡Gracias por tu ayuda! Steve — Comentario anterior sin firmar añadido por Copenhagenslang ( discusión • contribuciones ) 21:47 11 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola, Copenhagenslang, no necesito ni quiero tu dirección de correo electrónico ni otros datos de contacto, y si los publicas los borraré sin leerlos. Sin embargo, puedes enviar esta información a [email protected] con una solicitud para que confirmen tu identidad. Incluye tu nombre de usuario y el nombre del artículo que te interesa, en este caso Reignwolf . Sin embargo, no creo que haga mucha diferencia, ya que Wikipedia se basa en fuentes publicadas, no en la información personal de las personas involucradas en una situación.
La información que usted eliminó, o la mayor parte de ella, y yo restauré, fue y es citada a fuentes aparentemente confiables, específicamente:
Bienstock, Richard (8 de septiembre de 2014). «Cómo Reignwolf se convirtió en un ejército unipersonal de blues y rock». Rolling Stone . Consultado el 27 de marzo de 2017 .
Beckmann, Jim (29 de junio de 2012). "Reignwolf: A One-Man Rock Show". NPR . Consultado el 27 de marzo de 2017 .
"Roadies Rocks with Republic". Hits Daily Double . 15 de junio de 2016. Consultado el 27 de marzo de 2017 .
No me parece creíble que alguna de las fuentes mencionadas anteriormente fuera falsificada de alguna manera, particularmente las primeras dos. ¿Está usted afirmando seriamente que la información que apareció en Rolling Stone o la información que fue transmitida por NPR era "FALSA"?
Si desea que se elimine esta información o que se sustituya por otra, primero debe publicar citas de fuentes de al menos igual fiabilidad que respalden la información diferente en Talk:Reignwolf . Luego, describa allí los cambios que desea que se realicen y agregue {{ Request edit }} . No intente realizar estos cambios directamente, ya que se revertirán nuevamente. Yo u otro usuario experimentado revisaremos su solicitud, en particular las fuentes proporcionadas, y actuaremos como parezca apropiado.
Tenga en cuenta que cuando las fuentes confiables difieren sobre los hechos, la práctica habitual de Wikipedia es proporcionar ambas versiones, con las fuentes apropiadas atribuidas y citadas, para que los lectores puedan saber que existe una disputa. Esto se hace a menos que esté muy claro que una versión es errónea y ninguna persona razonable podría aceptarla.
Por favor, lea nuestra política sobre verificabilidad y nuestra política relacionada con las biografías de personas vivas que se aplica aquí. No agregamos contenido simplemente porque alguien afirma que es cierto, sin una fuente de respaldo. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 22:33, 11 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) @Copenhagenslang: DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 22:34, 11 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Vi que me adoptaste
¡Estoy de vuelta! Perdón por no haber respondido mucho todavía. Pero tengo clases y no he estado muy activa durante la semana. También estuve en un breve descanso . Pero no terminaré la escuela hasta el 31 de mayo. Pero ese es el momento en que estaré más activa. Así que aceptaré estar activa después del 31 de mayo. Los caballos SON buenosLlévame a mi página de discusión 20:10 12 may 2018 (UTC)[responder]
Está bien, HorsesAreNice , la escuela, el trabajo u otras actividades fuera de la wiki a menudo tienen prioridad. Nada dice que debas estar activo todo el tiempo o en un momento en particular, solo una intención general de estar activo en el futuro. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 02:23 13 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Qué carajo?
Tu respuesta a esto fue total y completamente inapropiada. Me atacaste de manera personal y atroz, probablemente lo suficientemente velada como para evitar una sanción, y no era obvio para nadie que estaban hablando de mí, y respondiste incluyendo un enlace a mi nombre de usuario. En mi opinión, me acabas de atacar personalmente al vincularme con su ridícula mierda. TÚ... no ellos. Deberías haber censurado toda su declaración como trolling. Tienes que sacar la cabeza del culo antes de empezar a editar, amigo. ARREGLÁLO, o esto no terminará. John de Idegon ( discusión ) 16:13 13 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
La respuesta adecuada a un ataque de este tipo, John de Idegon , es refutarlo, no censurarlo. En particular, en Teahouse no censuraré ni siquiera las preguntas semilegítimas, y revertiré las censuras de otros. Otros lectores de Teahouse deben saber que las modificaciones que usted hizo son legítimas, y que las quejas se tienen en cuenta y se responde a ellas, no se esconden bajo la alfombra. Muchos usuarios nuevos piensan incorrectamente que existe un sistema de castas en Wikipedia, que puede verse exacerbado por el tono que adoptan a veces algunos usuarios experimentados. Esto debe contrarrestarse en todas las ocasiones posibles.
Supongo que podría haber omitido tu nombre de usuario, pero como en cualquier caso iba a enlazar al artículo, el historial lo habría hecho obvio, como ya era obvio para cualquier usuario habitual. (Estaba bastante seguro de que eras el protagonista antes de seguir los enlaces. La confirmación tardó unos segundos). Decir claramente que no creía en lo que estoy seguro que era una acusación falsa no es un ataque, pero si piensas lo contrario, elimina tu nombre según WP:RPA . Si realmente crees que te he atacado con la edición anterior, no dudes en llevar el asunto a ANI. No revertiré ni alteraré mi edición. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 16:29, 13 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Aceite de árbol de té
Hola. Por favor, explica dónde, en las fuentes citadas, se encuentra la frase "Existe evidencia de eficacia" que tú has restaurado. ¿Diff está respaldada por las fuentes? ¡Gracias y buena suerte con la finalización de los próximos diez años! - Roxy, el perro. barcus 20:03, 13 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola de nuevo. Has realizado 35 ediciones, incluidas algunas en esta página, desde que hice esta pregunta. ¿Es tu intención responder? - Roxy, la perrita. barcus 07:22, 15 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me parece un poco ignorante tu respuesta. ¿ANI? - Roxy, la perrita. barcus 05:35, 16 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
No te había respondido en absoluto, Roxy the dog , por lo que me disculpo. Tengo la intención de revisar las fuentes más a fondo y comentar en la página de discusión del artículo. Por supuesto, no editaré la guerra. Intentaré hacerlo esta noche, pero no puedo prometerlo. Me he demorado porque una revisión adecuada de las fuentes tomaría más tiempo que las pequeñas ediciones que he hecho desde entonces. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 17:42 16 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
No mencioné a ANI en ningún comentario sobre el aceite de árbol de té ni sobre ti. Tampoco veo ninguna razón para tal mención. ¿Podrías haber visto una mención de eso en la sección anterior, en mi respuesta a John de Idegon sobre un tema totalmente diferente? DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 17:42, 16 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Yo también lo siento. Me siento un poco tonto en realidad, y espero que me perdonen. Lo único que hice sensatamente fue esperar tanto como pude entre publicaciones. Esto ha significado que me he calmado con todo esto. He leído las fuentes en varias ocasiones y no puedo ver respaldo a la eficacia como lo requiere Wikipedia. Lo que no vi es que algunos pueden ver evidencia. También le respondí antes. El comentario de ANI anterior era yo preguntando si quería que me dirigiera a ANI por esto, algo que me doy cuenta de que es una tontería. - Roxy, el perro. barcus 00:39, 17 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Princesa Caraboo
Teniendo en cuenta el consejo que diste en la Casa de Té, esperaba que echaras un vistazo a las ediciones recientes en Princess Caraboo . Voy a dar un paso atrás y espero que se pueda llegar a una solución. Gracias. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 02:09, 19 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola, TheOldJacobite . Parece que me estoy perdiendo algo. Miré Princess Caraboo , su historial y su página de discusión. No veo ninguna guerra de ediciones aparente, ninguna reversión reciente, ninguna edición aparentemente dudosa ni ningún problema obvio que necesite una solución. Por favor, ¿cuál es el problema del que estás dando marcha atrás? Con gusto ayudaré si puedo, pero me vendría bien una pista aquí, por favor. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 11:06 19 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mis disculpas. Era tarde y no pude comprobar el enlace. Me refería al artículo sobre la película, La princesa Caraboo . Gracias. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 11:51, 19 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
No hay problema. Finalmente me di cuenta de eso a partir de tus contribuciones. Gracias por hacérmelo saber, TheOldJacobite . DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 13:28 19 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Lo siento
Me disculpo por desviar la discusión sobre tu mudanza . Estoy enojado por ese ensayo y no debería haber usado esa discusión para expresar mi descontento. Ahora, un grupo de editores está de acuerdo en que debe eliminarse, pero ese no es el foro para ese tipo de discusión y los intentos de eliminación anteriores ya fracasaron. Mi comentario egoísta te hizo perder el tiempo. Lo siento por eso. (No estoy mirando esta página, así que, por favor, envíame un mensaje si quieres mi atención). Chris Troutman ( discusión ) 00:19, 21 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Varios otros editores parecen igualmente enojados con ese ensayo, Chris Troutman y yo mismo no lo apoyo totalmente de ninguna manera. Me gustaría que se concentraran en presentar su caso en un contraensayo, o simplemente ignoraran ese hasta que realmente se use para respaldar la inclusión de tales incidentes en un artículo sobre algún modelo o tipo particular de arma de fuego. Por supuesto, no está más ni menos en el espacio del proyecto bajo un nombre diferente (y en mi opinión más preciso) que el actual. Pero nadie me está apuntando con una pistola a la cabeza, por así decirlo, y me está haciendo responder a los comentarios sobre ese ensayo. Tampoco es mi discusión, es de la comunidad, incluso si no me gusta hacia dónde va. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 00:48, 21 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Si realmente crees que tu comentario anterior fue inapropiado o inútil, puedes eliminarlo o publicar un comentario revisado. Tengo curiosidad, si asumimos que el ensayo no será eliminado o modificado, ¿lo preferirías con el nombre actual o con un nombre más específico? Si quieres responder a eso, por supuesto. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 00:48 21 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Aprecio tus contribuciones a la comunidad y, como tal, preferiría que tuvieran la máxima eficacia. Mi deseo de opinar arruinó tu retorno de la inversión simplemente por una cuestión de hacer clic y escribir. Reconozco que no tienes nada que ver con la pelea; iniciaste una discusión que debería haber llevado a un consenso a favor o en contra de la propuesta. Creo que el daño está hecho; no habrá una discusión significativa sobre el título del ensayo, especialmente porque los defensores del ensayo no pueden admitir su propio partidismo. En cuanto a mí, proporcioné un par de sugerencias en esa discusión. El ensayo es político y el título debería reflejarlo. Los defensores del control de armas a menudo caen en un par de sesgos cognitivos y errores de juicio y no hay forma de que pueda arreglar eso. Sabemos que Wikipedia tiene una tendencia izquierdista, por lo que ese no es el grupo demográfico para rechazar ese ensayo. Nuestros editores a menudo quieren que Wikipedia refleje lo que ellos mismos creen que es verdad, debe irritar a muchos que Wikipedia no haya hecho más para defender la abolición de las armas de fuego.
Quiero disipar tu idea sobre un contraargumento. Si bien los principios de la libertad de expresión incluyen la idea de que los argumentos despreciables deben ser respondidos con contraargumentos en lugar de con la regulación de la expresión, no creo que eso funcione aquí. Tenemos, por ejemplo, ensayos que apoyan el inclusivismo y el borrado en Wikipedia porque es una división filosófica nativa en nuestra comunidad. No hay una opinión de consenso en toda Wikipedia, pero es un desacuerdo justo suponiendo que los editores no estén votando "ME GUSTA/ME GUSTA". Tener un ensayo que aboga por el uso de material de fuentes primarias para abordar la prevalencia de armas de fuego en actos criminales es políticamente partidista y viola el punto de vista no vinculante. Es el borde delgado de una cuña destinada a dibujar una flecha desde la existencia de un arma hasta las muertes y lesiones resultantes. También invita a los partidarios de esa tendencia a escribir narrativas contra las armas, desplazando a los editores pro armas que solo están interesados en los detalles técnicos apolíticos del arma en cuestión. El efecto de este ensayo es confundir correlación con causalidad. El uso de algo como un rifle negro aterrador en un tiroteo no debería cubrirse utilizando fuentes primarias porque permite a los editores salirse con la suya con la investigación original , todo lo cual es defectuoso porque se selecciona la variable dependiente. De hecho, tengo un título en políticas, así que sé de lo que hablo. Permitir que el ensayo exista en el espacio de WP hace que sea más probable que gane tracción. Escribir un ensayo de oposición que diga que deberíamos mantener la violencia con armas fuera de los artículos sobre armas sería igualmente partidista o simplemente repetiría los argumentos que analiza el primer ensayo. Pensaré en esto y tal vez escriba algo más coherente para The Signpost . Chris Troutman ( discusión ) 01:20, 21 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Alguna decisión? Hay 8 votos a favor de eliminar y 1,5 en contra de conservar, y parece que ya pasó la fecha de finalización con un consenso claro. Chrisdevelop ( discusión ) 15:02, 21 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Chrisdevelop , yo no cierro esto, lo hará un administrador no involucrado. Pasará cuando alguien se decida. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 17:39 22 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ingenieros Vascon
Hola señor, saludos, he enviado el artículo Borrador: Vascon Engineers de acuerdo con la política de Wikipedia. Hice todo lo posible por seguir las pautas de Wikipedia. No tenemos intención de promocionar nuestra empresa. Todo lo que queríamos era tener una página en Wikipedia como la tienen otras empresas inmobiliarias. Aunque el artículo solo tiene dos oraciones, estamos de acuerdo. Sería de gran ayuda si pudiera revisar el artículo o sugerirme qué más se puede hacer para que se apruebe. Gracias -- 183.87.201.141 ( discusión ) 12:49, 22 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Editor de IP 141, por favor vea mis comentarios en Draft talk:Vascon Engineers. Creo que le recomendamos que se registre y use un nombre de usuario/cuenta si desea seguir adelante con esto. Tenga en cuenta que muchas empresas perfectamente válidas no son notables y no tienen artículos en Wikipedia. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 18:08, 22 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estimado señor, gracias por su ayuda. No puedo registrarme porque un editor llamado SpacemanSpiff me ha bloqueado por sospechar que soy una cuenta falsa o de títere de trapo, aunque no lo soy. Me registré en Wikipedia por primera vez. El usuario: Fyomancho es mi cuenta real.
Señor, estoy trabajando en Vascon y recibo un salario mensual, ¿se llamará PAGADO según la política de pago de Wikipedia?
Creo que Vascon está en la tabla según https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EditPage/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Publicly_traded_corporations. Gracias -- 183.87.183.51 (discusión) 14:54 25 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Si te han bloqueado, no debes editar sin iniciar sesión. Deberás apelar tu bloqueo si crees que no está justificado. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 15:38 25 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Si trabaja para Vascon y se espera que edite Wikipedia como parte de su trabajo, o si sus ediciones se tendrán en cuenta cuando se evalúe su desempeño laboral, o afectarán la opinión que su empleador tiene de usted, o se realizan durante el tiempo de trabajo, entonces claramente se encuentra dentro de WP:PAID . Si editara, si lo hiciera completamente por su cuenta, en su tiempo libre, igualmente tendría un conflicto de intereses . DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 15:38, 25 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
No ayudaré a un editor que evade bloques. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 15:38 25 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Mente para Rob Sherratt?
Hola David, muchas gracias por tu ayuda en TeaHouse hoy. Te agradecería mucho que consideraras ser mi mentor por un corto tiempo, mientras adquiero más experiencia. Rob Sherratt ( discusión ) 02:27 23 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola David, ref. Iglesia del Monasterio de San Nicolás, Mesopotam . Yo estuve allí. Yo tomé las fotos. Las fotos tienen datos de DCIm que prueban la fuente y la ubicación. Hablé con los Papas. Asistí al festival el domingo 20 de mayo de 2018, el fin de semana pasado. Soy un testigo de primera mano y una fuente creíble. ¿No es esto suficiente para Wikipedia? ¿Hay algo más que pueda hacer para resolver los "problemas" que has señalado, o debo simplemente rendirme, porque esto me está llevando demasiado tiempo y esfuerzo? Rob Sherratt ( discusión ) 13:16 23 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Lamento no haberme explicado antes con más detalle, Rob Sherratt . No, un "testigo de primera mano" nunca es "suficientemente bueno para Wikipedia". Los artículos deben basarse en fuentes publicadas y confiables . Lo que usted vio no se publica, a menos que lo escriba, por ejemplo, como un artículo de viajes, y lo publique en alguna fuente confiable. Tenga en cuenta que su propio sitio web o blog no se consideraría confiable a menos que sea un experto reconocido en el campo de los viajes, o tal vez en esa región o en algún otro campo relevante. Esto no significa que no sea creíble en el sentido habitual de la palabra: no se aceptaría ningún relato de primera mano no publicado o autopublicado. Nadie más puede leer su mente para saber lo que vio, y un lector aleatorio no tiene forma de saber quién es usted o qué reputación de precisión tiene. Las fuentes confiables tienen control editorial, de modo que alguien además del escritor se interpone entre el escritor y el lector y ayuda a garantizar la precisión. Las fuentes fiables tienen reputación de por sí, lo que es un incentivo para hacer las cosas correctamente, y si no lo hacen, eso forma parte de su reputación y puede ser tomado en cuenta por el lector. Wikipedia, como todas las enciclopedias, es una fuente terciaria . Depende de lo que otros ya hayan escrito, en gran parte en fuentes secundarias, además de algunas fuentes primarias. Véase WP:PRIMARY y WP:SECONDARY . Wikipedia no es un lugar para publicar relatos originales de experiencias personales, o artículos basados en tales experiencias. Lo que se necesita en la Iglesia del Monasterio de San Nicolás, Mesopotam , es encontrar fuentes publicadas que describan la iglesia y el festival, si es posible. Espero que eso aclare un poco las cosas. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 22:38, 23 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias David, eso me aclara mucho las cosas. He quedado con Reshat Gega, un reconocido experto en Albania que ha publicado muchos artículos. Sé que Reshat está dispuesto a ayudarme a proporcionar buenos documentos de referencia. Así que, por favor, tenme paciencia, ¡estoy decidido a hacerlo bien! Rob Sherratt ( discusión ) 14:05 28 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Actualización
Otro usuario señaló esta página de usuario. Pensé que debería señalarla aquí, ya que Oshwah parece estar inactiva en este momento. Aquí está la página de usuario: [4] Thegooduser Let's Chat 03:40, 23 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Si aún no lo has hecho, probablemente hayas olvidado redactar la primera revisión de la página de usuario. Thegooduser Let's Chat 03:46, 23 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias, Thegooduser. No creo que esto cumpla con el estándar para la eliminación de revisiones, la eliminación simple mediante edición debería ser suficiente. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 03:47 23 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
OkThegooduser Hablemos 03:49, 23 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Tengo el presentimiento de que ese usuario es un calcetín. Pero puedo estar equivocado. Thegooduser Let's Chat 03:49, 23 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Es posible que tengas razón. O puede que se trate de un antiguo editor de IP. O de un usuario con un nuevo nombre de usuario, pero que no edita de forma abusiva. No creo que haya suficiente aquí para abrir un SPI, ni para bloquear de forma preventiva, ni para hacer un bloqueo WP:NOTHERE . Sin embargo, si el usuario continúa editando de forma disruptiva, es posible que sea necesario bloquearlo. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 03:54, 23 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
No quería abrir un SPI como dijiste, no hay pruebas suficientes. Pero tendré su Upage en mi lista de seguimiento. Thegooduser Let's Chat 03:56, 23 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Acabo de leer una conversación en la que respondiste a Robert McClenon sobre el rechazo de mi envío. No entiendo por qué se rechazó la notificación. ¿Puedes ayudarme a explicar por qué se rechazó y cómo puedo hacer que otro revisor que no sea Robert McClenon lo lea para su aprobación si vuelvo a enviarlo?
Hola David. He estado trabajando en la página biográfica de Judith Weinshall Liberman. No está terminada (especialmente la última sección Autorretratos de una artista del Holocausto ) y no he añadido una foto (o dos), pero cuando tengas un minuto, ¿puedes echarle un vistazo y darme tu opinión? Ella escribe libros para niños, obras de teatro y poesía, crea esculturas y tiene muchas pinturas fuera de las tres series del Holocausto, pero creo que debería ceñirme a su origen, educación y obras relacionadas con el Holocausto (y puedo proporcionar enlaces externos a información sobre las piezas no relacionadas con el Holocausto). Además, hay muy poca información verificable sobre cualquiera de sus obras aparte de la serie del Holocausto (alguna, pero no mucha); en su mayor parte, toda la información sobre esas cosas se encuentra en su sitio web personal y en sitios como Amazon. ¿Qué opinas? Borrador: Judith Weinshall Liberman George David NH ( discusión ) 00:54, 24 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
A continuación se presentan algunos comentarios y sugerencias de George David NH :
En la sección "Educación", hay una frase: Weinshall Liberman regresó a Israel y trabajó como editora de la Economic Review, la Agencia Judía en Jerusalén y como profesora en la Facultad de Derecho y Economía de Tel Aviv. Puse Economic Review en cursiva, ya que es un título. Había sido vinculado a Economy of Isreal. Eliminé el enlace porque no hay ninguna mención de Economic Review en ese artículo. Además, ella era editora y profesora, pero ¿qué hizo para o con la Agencia Judía? Eso no está claro y hace que la oración se lea de manera extraña, en mi opinión.
Más adelante en la sección dice: En 1956, Weinshall Liberman dirigió su atención a las artes y comenzó a tomar clases de pintura, dibujo, artes textiles, escultura y otros medios artísticos en el Art Institute of Boston (ahora Lesley University). Esto se cita a www.lesley.edu/. Pero esa es simplemente una página de y sobre Lesley University, no verifica de ninguna manera que Liberman asistió a Lesley. Esa oración debe citarse a una fuente que realmente verifique su asistencia. Una lista de exalumnas publicada por la escuela sería ideal, o una mención de su asistencia en el periódico, pero incluso una cita a su autobiografía sería mejor que la cita actual. De hecho, ninguna fuente en absoluto sería una mejora. Una fuente que no respalda lo que se cita para respaldar es engañosa y hace que el lector cuestione todas las fuentes en el artículo. Parece haber un problema similar con la cita a https://www.law.umich.edu/Pages/default.aspx un poco antes. Vuelva a comprobar todas las fuentes citadas para esto; una página que sólo trata sobre una institución que se menciona, pero que no verifica los hechos establecidos, no debería citarse. Para eso sirve un enlace wiki a un artículo sobre la institución (si existe un artículo). Varias de las citas cerca del final de la sección "Educación" parecen tener el mismo problema.
Al citar una fuente en línea, el parámetro |website=o |work=debe ser el nombre del sitio. Por ejemplo, si se cita un artículo de Wikipedia, se debe utilizar work=Wikipedia . No se debe utilizar el dominio del sitio a menos que no tenga otro nombre (un formato como website=en.wikipedia.org solo se debe utilizar en sitios que no tengan un nombre real) y nunca se debe utilizar la URL completa.
La sección "Las pinturas del Holocausto" incluye la frase " la paleta de colores de cada pintura es principalmente rojo, negro y gris para representar el dolor, el sufrimiento y la muerte experimentados a lo largo del Holocausto". Los colores utilizados son un hecho, pero lo que representan es una opinión. Sería mejor escribirlo como " la paleta de colores de cada pintura es principalmente rojo, negro y gris. Según <experto destacado> esto representa el dolor, el sufrimiento y la muerte experimentados a lo largo del Holocausto ". con una cita donde el experto dice esto o, en su defecto, una cita donde la propia Liberman dice que esa era su intención.
En esta edición, cambié la cita de una fuente que no respalda el hecho declarado por una que sí lo respalda y mejoré los datos de la cita. Tome nota de lo que hice y haga lo mismo con otras citas.
Esta mañana no tengo tiempo y revisaré el resto del borrador más tarde. Espero que esto sea útil hasta ahora. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 13:17 24 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Vale. Gracias, Dave. Entiendo tus recomendaciones y las tendré en cuenta. Si no notas esos cambios en la página es porque me tomaré un descanso de ella durante unos días. No estoy seguro. George David NH ( discusión ) 14:17 24 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hice los cambios que me sugeriste en Draft: Judith Weinshall Liberman y agregué texto adicional para terminar la página. ¿Puedes echarle un vistazo y ver qué se debe corregir antes de publicar? Además, ¿crees que debería agregar dos fotos de su trabajo o debería dejarlo solo en su foto biográfica? Debo ser honesto, traté de incluir dos fotos y seguí el proceso de carga y las reglas de codificación lo más de cerca que pude, pero olvidé cómo hacerlo correctamente porque las imágenes no se muestran. Dejo dos ejemplos de este problema en la página para que les eches un vistazo. Le he pedido a Liberman que me envíe una foto de su colección de autorretratos si crees que debería mostrar un ejemplo de cada serie. Gracias. George David NH ( discusión ) 19:30, 4 de junio de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Vi los cambios que hiciste en la página de JWL. Gracias. Avísame qué más crees que debería modificarse antes de publicarla. Me estoy cansando de buscar información útil sobre Liberman. ¡Ja! Empecé a trabajar en ese artículo en marzo. Ha sido un desafío. Para mi próximo artículo, intentaré armar una no biografía. Tal vez un artículo sobre una ubicación. George David NH ( discusión ) 23:36 4 jun 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Todavía no tenemos ninguna indicación de si ejerció como abogada antes de dedicarse al arte. Si se sabe y se puede obtener información, tal vez de su autobiografía, sería bueno incluirla.
Actualmente no hay ninguna fuente citada que indique su asistencia a alguna de las escuelas de arte. No es absolutamente esencial, pero nuevamente, sería bueno, si estuviera disponible.
Incluiría una sección de bibliografía, que consista en una lista con viñetas de todas sus obras, obras de arte y literatura publicadas, enumerando simplemente la publicación en cada una. La mayoría se pueden citar en fuentes que ya están en el borrador, aunque una obra publicada puede ser una fuente implícita (no citada) sobre sí misma, si se ha proporcionado información completa sobre la publicación que permita al lector encontrar una copia. Una razón para hacer esto es que, de lo contrario, la sección "Libros archivados" parece un grupo de obras NO publicadas. Otra razón es que reúne toda su producción en un solo lugar, y es habitual en un artículo sobre una persona creativa.
El borrador tiene actualmente una imagen de ella y se incluyen dos imágenes de sus obras. Probablemente eso sea suficiente por ahora.
La sección de los tapices de pared ahora dice: Escenas del Holocausto, Mapas del Holocausto y Epílogo y están diseñados con una paleta de colores predominantemente roja, gris y negra: rojo: sangre y fuego; gris: sufrimiento y desesperación; negro: muerte. Si esta es la opinión del artista, dígalo más explícitamente. Si es la de algún crítico, diga quién y cítelo.
Termine de completar los datos bibliográficos de cualquier fuente donde aún sean necesarios, por favor.
Espero que todo esto te sea de ayuda. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 00:11 5 jun 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
1. Todavía no tenemos ninguna indicación de si alguna vez ejerció como abogada antes de dedicarse al arte. Si se sabe y se puede obtener información, tal vez de su autobiografía, sería bueno incluirlo . Ella nunca ejerció como abogada, por lo que no puedo mencionarlo.
2. Actualmente no se cita ninguna fuente que indique su asistencia a ninguna de las escuelas de arte. No es absolutamente esencial, pero nuevamente, sería bueno si estuviera disponible . No hay registros de su asistencia a las escuelas ya que fue hace mucho tiempo y no obtuvo títulos de ninguna de las escuelas .
3. La sección sobre los tapices de pared ahora dice: Plantilla:TqqI Si esta es la opinión del artista, dígalo más explícitamente. Si es la opinión de algún crítico, diga quién y cítelo. No estoy seguro de qué quiere decir con esto. Por favor, avíseme .
4. En cuanto a la bibliografía de sus obras, cuando tengas un minuto libre, echa un vistazo a su sitio web, jliberman.com, para ver por qué no estoy seguro de cómo crear una. Su lista de trabajos es extensa y abarca casi todas las áreas del arte. Si miras la parte superior de la página, en Escritura, Obras de teatro, musicales y música, y Series de arte visual, hay muchas subcategorías, y la mayor parte de su trabajo no se puede verificar a menos que sea a través de su sitio web personal o un sitio de ventas como Amazon.com. ¿Debería mencionar solo las obras más notables? Algunas de sus obras de arte son significativas, mientras que otras parecen estar más centradas en el hobby y ciertamente no son notables. La mayoría de sus libros son autopublicados y no parecen tener mucho que decir en cuanto a reconocimiento externo, así que ¿deberíamos incluirlos igualmente en una bibliografía? George David NH ( discusión ) 01:16 5 jun 2018 (UTC) Nota: Seguí adelante y creé una bibliografía de "obras notables" —esas obras de arte, literatura y libros ilustrados que son verificables más allá de la información en su sitio web o una página de ventas. Déjenme saber qué piensan. George David NH ( discusión ) 03:12 5 jun 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
1. El artículo podría decir: "Aunque se graduó en la facultad de derecho, nunca ejerció la abogacía". Tal vez se podría citar su autobiografía.
2. Muy bien, entonces tendremos que dejarlo sin citar, o citar sólo su autobiografía.
3. Lo siento. Cometí un error de marcado. Debería haber dicho: La sección de los tapices de pared ahora dice: Escenas del Holocausto, Mapas del Holocausto y Epílogo y están diseñados con una paleta de colores principalmente rojo, gris y negro: rojo: sangre y fuego; gris: sufrimiento y desesperación; negro: muerte. Si esta es la opinión del artista, dígalo más explícitamente. Si es la de algún crítico, diga quién y cite. (Me refería al significado o propósito de cada color: sangre y fuego, sufrimiento y desesperación y muerte).
4. Sí, una bibliografía seleccionada es una buena idea, pero debería incluir toda la información disponible sobre la publicación, el nombre del editor cuando lo haya, el ISBN cuando se haya asignado y cualquier otra cosa que permita identificar la obra o ayudar a encontrar un ejemplar, en particular en el caso de los libros.
Por lo demás, las cosas me parecen bien. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 12:34 5 jun 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Buenos días. Gracias por el aporte. Creé la sección Bibliografía e incluí todas las piezas mencionadas en la página. No estoy seguro de qué más agregar, ya que todas sus editoriales son autoeditoras. Quiero evitar que parezca que estoy haciendo autopromoción. Por favor, échale un vistazo a la bibliografía cuando tengas tiempo para confirmar que la configuré correctamente. Tiene 48 libros ilustrados y muchas pinturas que no forman parte de colecciones. ¿Debería mencionar algunas de ellas aunque la fuente principal sea su sitio web o su autobiografía? George David NH ( discusión ) 12:45 5 jun 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Acabo de recibir el mensaje de que subí la foto Boarding dos veces y me dijeron que podría perder mis privilegios de edición si sucede demasiadas veces. La persona eliminó la foto de la página de Liberman. He estado tratando de averiguar lo que está bien y lo que está mal al publicar fotos, pero todavía no lo domino. Le envié a Wiki toda la información de permisos de fotos que recibí de Judy hace un mes aproximadamente, así que ¿cuál es el problema? ¿Alguna idea de lo que debo hacer aquí? George David NH ( discusión ) 20:51, 5 de junio de 2018 (UTC) Este es el mensaje: Su imagen u otro contenido, Archivo: Boarding.jpg, fue eliminado recientemente de acuerdo con nuestro proceso y políticas. Ha recreado este contenido después de que se eliminó; no lo haga. Si desea impugnar la eliminación, visite Commons: Solicitudes de recuperación de eliminación y siga las instrucciones allí para que se revise la eliminación. No se permite recrear contenido eliminado fuera del proceso y hacerlo repetidamente puede hacer que pierda sus privilegios de edición. Gracias por su comprensión. [ responder ]
Hola Dave. Cambié la bibliografía por "Obras notables"; parece que tiene más sentido. Avísame qué opinas. George David NH ( discusión ) 18:53 6 jun 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ronhjones (discusión) 20:13 5 jun 2018 (UTC) George David NH ( discusión ) 20:58 5 jun 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Lamentablemente, la única respuesta es esperar. OTRS para Commons tiene un retraso de 87 días (c:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard). OTRS recuperará la imagen una vez que haya validado el permiso. Si me dice el número de ticket, lo revisaré (pero no soy bueno con los permisos, por lo que normalmente los dejo en paz; es muy fácil equivocarse). Veo que arriba dijo "He enviado a Wiki toda la información de permisos de fotos que recibí de Judy hace un mes". Debo aclarar que los correos electrónicos reenviados generalmente son rechazados (es muy fácil inventarlos). Ron h jones (discusión) 16:18, 6 de junio de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
George David NH (discusión), ¿puedes proporcionarle a Ronhjones el número de ticket de OTRS? Quizás pueda ayudar. Sugeriría "Obras seleccionadas" o quizás "Obras significativas" en lugar de "Obras notables" solo porque "notable" tiene un significado técnico en Wikipedia y no queremos que nadie piense que el artículo o su autor afirman que todas las obras enumeradas deberían tener artículos separados. Pero como no es una bibliografía completa, probablemente sea una buena idea un cambio. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 00:37 7 jun 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Encontré el número de ticket de OTRS y envié una solicitud de ayuda al usuario: Ronhjones . También cambié "Obras notables" por "Obras seleccionadas". Compruébelo y envíeme sus comentarios cuando sea posible. George David NH ( discusión ) 02:35 7 jun 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola Dave. Una actualización: He dado el siguiente paso (correctamente) para que las fotos sean aprobadas enviando toda la información necesaria en un correo electrónico con el ticket adjunto n.° 2018041410007775 a [email protected] y [email protected]. El siguiente paso es esperar una respuesta. Una vez que las fotos sean aprobadas, creo que el artículo que ahora está en borrador: Judith Weinshall Liberman está listo para publicarse.
Usuario:Bounty_HunterxD
Usuario:Bounty_HunterxD ¿Qué debería hacer con esto? Jajaja... Thegooduser Hablemos 01:49, 25 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola DES, Discusión: el mismo tema mencionado anteriormente por el usuario:Thegooduser. Gracias. CASSIOPEIA ( discusión ) 02:33 25 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
@Thegooduser y CASSIOPEIA : No veo ninguna razón por la que ninguno de los dos deba hacer nada al respecto. Bounty_HunterxD no está haciendo nada particularmente dañino, aunque tampoco ha hecho nada particularmente útil. Les aconsejo que simplemente lo ignoren hasta que haga algo que realmente cause un problema significativo. ¿Qué les hace pensar que quieren vigilar la página de ese usuario? DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 03:23 25 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
@Thegooduser: Hola DUS, pienso lo mismo y gracias por la respuesta en mi página de usuario. Hola, Thegooduser, simplemente ignora sin gracia la declaración hecha. Saludos y que tengas un buen día. CASSIOPEIA ( discusión ) 03:42 25 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Para su información, estoy mirando esa página porque siento que ese usuario va a realizar más "ataques". O podría estar equivocado. Thegooduser Let's Chat 00:51, 26 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Como esto no es realmente pertinente para la discusión de "née" y demás, traigo mi pregunta aquí. Dijiste que he sido un profesional en el campo de la informática durante más de 30 años, con un fuerte interés también en las matemáticas, nunca había oído hablar de este uso de "iff" antes de esta discusión. ¿Estás diciendo que nunca has visto "iff" utilizado en informática y matemáticas, o estás diciendo que nunca has visto "iff" utilizado fuera de los campos de la informática y las matemáticas? Personalmente, lo aprendí en mis clases de "Introducción a la química y la física" de noveno grado y (el nivel de grado apropiado) de matemáticas. Solo tengo curiosidad, así que gracias por tu tiempo. — fourthords | =Λ= | 15:42, 25 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
En cuarto lugar , digo que nunca lo he visto en ningún contexto. He visto la frase "Si y solo si" con frecuencia, en matemáticas de secundaria y universitarias, en contextos de informática profesionales y no profesionales, y en otros lugares. Hasta donde recuerdo, nunca la he visto abreviada como "iff". Supuse que era un simple error tipográfico para "if", y eso es lo que seguiría asumiendo si alguien más que tú la usara, a menos que el otro significado se aclarara muy bien, como por ejemplo ampliándola en el primer uso. He sido un lector bastante voraz de literatura matemática a un nivel bastante avanzado aunque no completamente profesional, lo mismo para Física (que fue mi especialidad universitaria de pregrado). Tengo y he leído cosas como El mundo de las matemáticas de Krasner y Newman , las Conferencias de Feynman y muchas otras obras de un nivel similar. Tengo una memoria bastante buena para las locuciones. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribuciones 16:02, 25 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
(a) No estaba poniendo en duda en absoluto tu conocimiento o conciencia sobre el tema; aquí solo somos editores seudónimos. Simplemente no estaba seguro de lo que decías en esa otra página. (b) Usé "iff" (y lo he hecho, en varios contextos a lo largo de muchos años) porque he asumido que todo lo que me enseñaron en un curso de nivel idiota para adolescentes de noveno grado es una abreviatura común. Tal vez no. De todos modos, en realidad tenemos más información aquí en Wikipedia si estás interesado: iff#Origen de iff y pronunciación . ¡Cuídate! — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:23, 25 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eso es bastante interesante. No me sentí desafiado, solo estaba tratando de aclarar el contexto de mi experiencia y observaciones. Obviamente, este no es un neologismo reciente o no comprobado, según las citas en el artículo que amablemente vinculaste arriba. Solo uno que no había encontrado antes. Gracias por la información. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 19:29, 25 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) @ Fourthords : DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 19:30, 25 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sólo para decir...
...Me encontré con un adoptado tuyo en User talk:HorsesAreNice . E Eng 04:25, 28 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Discusión:British Rail Class 700/GA1
DESiegel, es una pena que esto haya pasado por MFD, porque este tipo de revisiones abandonadas se aceleran regularmente a través de G6. No hay historial que guardar, ya que en realidad no se realizó ninguna revisión. Solo para que lo sepas para el futuro... BlueMoonset ( discusión ) 23:56 1 jun 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
BlueMoonset Yo diría que esas no son eliminaciones válidas de G6. El hecho de que la revisión de GA se haya retrasado porque un revisor se hizo cargo de la tarea y no pudo completarla puede ser historia relevante en el futuro, como también lo puede ser el hecho de que un revisor en particular se hizo cargo de más de lo que podía manejar. En cualquier caso, una vez que cualquier editor legítimo objeta, la eliminación no es indiscutible, y por lo tanto G6 no aplica. No fui el único editor que objetó esta nominación de eliminación. Y las instrucciones de revisión de GA sugieren que tales eliminaciones no son necesarias. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 01:07 2 jun 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
En la página de discusión del artículo se indicará el historial de apertura y cierre de una revisión y (en el resumen de la edición) por qué. Es evidente que un G6 ya no es relevante en este caso, pero creo firmemente que un G6 para páginas de revisión que nunca se iniciaron y que se abandonaron es perfectamente válido. BlueMoonset ( discusión ) 01:49 2 jun 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias por tu ayuda para resolver una pregunta sobre derechos de autor que me surgió hace un par de días en la página de Teahouse. ¡Tus instrucciones son claras y en el futuro creo que podré resolverla yo solo! Lindsark ( discusión ) 13:06 3 jun 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola. Comencé a escribir un artículo sobre Kathleen Parker (política) . Me acabo de enterar de que tú también comenzaste a escribir un artículo sobre la misma persona. Los dos artículos debían fusionarse y no tengo problemas con eso. Mis disculpas por cualquier problema que pueda haber causado con esto. Gracias. RFD ( discusión ) 10:49 8 jun 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Borrador: Tata Nexon
Hola, agrego la cita (y la cita de plantilla) en la página Borrador:Tata Nexon . ¿Es correcto? ¿Puedes mover la página en Tata Nexon ? --Lanciatype840 ( discusión ) 11:33 11 jun 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
David:
Agradezco su oferta de crear un artículo sobre CN Otis
Me gustaría imitar las páginas de Frank Lloyd Wright con su lista completa de obras, etc. Intentaré hacerlo en Wikidpad, pero es posible que pase directamente a una página web HTML.
Luego te enviaré un enlace y podrás decidir si debería estar en Wiki.
Si bien puedo comprender la necesidad de todas las reglas y regulaciones que implica hacer páginas Wiki, es más de lo que quiero enfrentar en mis años de vejez.
Lew Lewis buttery ( discusión ) 06:15 14 jun 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Lew
¡Una taza de té para ti!
Gracias DES
Para que me orienten sobre cómo añadir una página sobre el programa de televisión "Matter of Fact with Soledad O'Brien". Seguiré sus pautas. Tom Tcampo123 ( discusión ) 21:03 14 jun 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
De nada, Tcampo123 . No dudes en hacer más preguntas aquí o en la casa de té. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 21:21 14 jun 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Pregunta sobre derechos de autor
Has estado ayudando con este archivo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EditPage/File:Press_photo_2_Brothers_on_the_4th_floor_A-700x998.jpg#Summary
Mi problema con la bandera de derechos de autor es que uno de los artistas me dio la foto y la foto es un trabajo por encargo, destinado específicamente a fines publicitarios. ¿Cómo puedo indicar la justificación, ya que ni siquiera puedo encontrar una manera de hacerlo? Cualquier ayuda será apreciada. Gracias. Albanymike ( discusión ) 22:38, 14 de junio de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Albanymike, si se trata de un trabajo realizado por encargo, entonces la parte que lo contrató (supongo que los protagonistas o uno de ellos, o la banda como entidad) posee los derechos de autor, no el fotógrafo. Entiendo que la foto mía en mi página de usuario fue un trabajo realizado por encargo con fines de publicidad política, como se puede ver en Archivo:David Siegel.jpg . Pero el permiso "para usar la foto en Wikipedia" no es suficiente. Si la foto se publica libremente, entonces el permiso debe venir directamente del titular de los derechos de autor a "permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org" y la foto debe estar bajo una licencia libre , una que permita a cualquier persona en el mundo reutilizar la imagen para cualquier propósito, incluido el uso comercial, libre de regalías. Consulte Wikipedia:Solicitar permiso de derechos de autor y Wikipedia:Donar materiales con derechos de autor para obtener más detalles sobre este proceso. Si la foto no está bajo una licencia libre, solo se puede usar bajo una declaración de uso justo que requiere una declaración, conocida como "justificación del uso justo", que explica cómo el uso de la imagen cumple con todos los criterios no libres . La Wikipedia:Donación de materiales con derechos de autor explica cómo se debe construir esta justificación. La plantilla La plantilla {{ Justificación del uso no libre 2 }} se puede4 usar para construir dicha justificación. Espero que esto te sea útil. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 12:39 15 jun 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
UFC 228
Hola DES, buen día. Hice un PROD del artículo anterior hace 2 meses (abril de 2018) y el resultado fue una eliminación. Se volvió a crear el mismo título e intenté hacer un PROD nuevamente. Sin embargo, la entrada incluía el primer PROD y el resultado (la ventana azul) junto con la nueva información del PROD. Como tal, el usuario Finngall revirtió la edición porque pensó que era una entrada cerrada. Le escribí a Finngall pero no recibí respuesta, así que rehice el PROD nuevamente y la edición fue revertida nuevamente por Finngall - [5]. ¿Qué se puede hacer? Gracias de antemano por su ayuda. CASSIOPEIA ( discusión ) 07:28, 15 de junio de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Le respondí a CASSIOPEIA en mi página de discusión. Si lo prefieres, puedes participar. Gracias. -- Finngall talk 07:34, 15 de junio de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Incluido Finngall , Hola DES, no necesito ayuda. Perdón por saturar tu página. Gracias. CASSIOPEIA ( discusión ) 12:31 15 jun 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
No es útil publicar repetidamente en MfD cosas que van en contra del consenso y de una decisión reciente de la comunidad. No estar al tanto de la decisión justifica algunas publicaciones, pero ahora que lo sabes, no desestimes el procedimiento operativo recientemente codificado. No tiene ningún valor mantener borradores no destacables para rechazarlos una y otra vez. No alienta a los editores a abordar otros temas y desperdicia el tiempo de los voluntarios. En este punto, también estás desperdiciando el tiempo de otros voluntarios con declaraciones engañosas que deben corregirse para que no se las considere una política establecida por el administrador. Por favor, deja de hacerlo. Legacypac ( discusión ) 22:43, 16 de junio de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
No tengo la menor intención de detenerme, Legacypac . De hecho, espero acelerar el proceso. Seré claro cuando exprese mi política y cuando exprese mis propias opiniones. No puedo considerar y no considero que la reciente RFC sea definitiva, y seguiré argumentando en contra de lo que creo que es una política muy deficiente y defendiendo la retención de borradores que creo que se están eliminando de manera incorrecta o se están proponiendo para su eliminación.
Nunca he afirmado ser especial por ser administrador, y me molesta que sugieras lo contrario. Te pido que muestres las diferencias en las que lo hice o que te disculpes. Eso se incluye en la sección de " echar calumnias" . No he usado ni sugerido usar herramientas de administrador de ninguna manera que no haya sido completamente aprobada por consenso, ni de ninguna manera en la disputa actual sobre los borradores. Tampoco he citado ningún prestigio que pueda asociarse a mi condición de administrador (si lo hubiera) como una razón por la que mis puntos de vista deberían prevalecer. Afirmo ser un editor experimentado, tan digno de que se consideren mis puntos de vista como cualquier otro editor de ese tipo, pero eso no los convierte en ley, y nunca afirmé que así fuera.
El "nuevo procedimiento operativo" no ha sido "codificado" más que de forma vaga. Tal vez mis objeciones lleven a que se codifique claramente, o tal vez a que se modifique. En cualquier caso, expresaré mis objeciones mientras lo considere oportuno, de acuerdo con la política correspondiente. Si cree que eso debería prohibirse, ARBCOM está allí.
Mientras tanto, no puedo aconsejar a los usuarios que envíen borradores a través de AfC. Tal vez se pueda idear algún mecanismo de revisión informal alternativo. Nadie está obligado a responder a mis comentarios, a menos que considere que vale la pena considerar mis argumentos. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 23:02 16 jun 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Nunca dije que estabas haciendo un mal uso de las herramientas. Lo que estoy señalando es que ser un administrador no será una defensa contra la posibilidad de que dejes de ser disruptivo. Cuando dices que las cosas son de cierta manera, implica que son así porque eres un administrador. Legacypac ( discusión ) 23:15 16 jun 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sólo si eliges leer mis comentarios de esa manera, Legacypac . Nunca dije ni insinué eso, nunca me referí siquiera a mi estado como administrador en ninguna de estas discusiones hasta que lo mencionaste. ¿Por qué? Porque sabía perfectamente bien que no era relevante. ¿Estás diciendo que hacer comentarios en un MfD (o varios de ellos) es disruptivo y debería ser sancionado? Buena suerte para que eso funcione. ¿Estás diciendo que proponer hacer (ni siquiera hacer) una edición audaz , con plena intención de cumplir con WP:BRD es disruptivo? Buena suerte con eso también. Si hago algo que creas que es disruptivo, eres bienvenido a tomar las medidas que creas adecuadas, pero insistiré en las diferencias y citas de la política que se comienza a violar. Si no puedes proporcionarlas, argumentaré por un resultado boomerang sólido. Si no puedes señalar algo que haya hecho que sea realmente disruptivo, sería mejor que no me describas a mí ni a mis acciones como disruptivas. Todavía estoy esperando tu disculpa. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribuciones 23:26, 16 de junio de 2018 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Dar a entender que no estoy siguiendo la política de MfD es un problema que debes corregir. Estás usando MfD para promover una posición que va directamente en contra de una RFC reciente. Sigue investigando. Legacypac ( discusión ) 23:30 16 jun 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Cuántas veces, Legacypac , expresó su opinión en diversas discusiones de MfD de que la versión anterior de WP:NMFD era "estúpida" o desacertada? ¿20? ¿30? Sospecho que podría encontrar al menos esa cantidad de diferencias. Su posición entonces se enfrentó directamente a una reciente RfC, gran parte de la cual todavía está vigente. Si mis comentarios son disruptivos, también lo fueron los suyos en ese momento. Pero mis comentarios no son disruptivos. La política de eliminación en particular a menudo está determinada por lo que sucede en las discusiones de eliminación individuales. Por lo tanto, es perfectamente apropiado discutir posiciones políticas durante una discusión de MfD y esperar que el ejemplo las ayude a encontrar tracción. Tampoco se han modificado otras políticas con la reciente RfC. En particular, WP:BITE sigue siendo una política, y considero que sus recientes nominaciones de MfD no son consistentes con ella, aunque concederé que ha estado actuando de buena fe y en cumplimiento de su visión de la política. Otros pueden estar en desacuerdo, por supuesto. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribuciones 01:45, 17 de junio de 2018 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
¡Una estrella de granero para ti!
¿Lo sabías?Vejaciones(hablar) 23:08, 20 de junio de 2018 (UTC)
Gracias, Vexations . Le echaré un vistazo. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 23:10 20 jun 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mal cierre
Cerró este mensaje como administrador involucrado (que hace campaña activamente por algunas de las cosas que busca este ensayo) [6] No tiene por qué hacer eso. Junto con sus otras acciones continuas en MfD, incluida la tergiversación de los resultados políticos, su actividad en MfD está socavando su credibilidad como administrador. Por favor, revierta su cierre. Legacypac ( discusión ) 19:42, 23 de junio de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
No lo creo, Legacypac . No edité la discusión sobre la eliminación. Nunca edité el ensayo ni su página de discusión, aunque una vez me hicieron un ping a ella, hace meses. Estoy de acuerdo con algunas de las ideas expresadas en el ensayo y no estoy de acuerdo con otras. No veo que esto me convierta en WP:INVOLVED .
Tampoco veo en qué he estado tergiversando los resultados políticos . ¿Qué declaraciones mías tergiversan algo, en tu opinión?
En cualquier caso, no voy a deshacer el cierre. Pero lo que haré será publicar en WP:AN , describiendo esto y pidiendo opiniones sobre si estuve demasiado involucrado como para cerrar esto correctamente. Por favor, considere esto como una notificación de que está a punto de ser mencionado allí, aunque publicaré una notificación formal en su página de discusión después de abrir el hilo en AN. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 22:25, 23 de junio de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
He señalado el problema de NPOL en tu ANi. Legacypac ( discusión ) 23:18 23 jun 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Bien, Legacypac . Plantea cualquier tema que creas relevante. Por cierto, es AN, no ANI, porque ese es el lugar donde se cierran las disputas, aunque no es que importe mucho. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 23:45 23 jun 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Para disputar el cierre, vaya a WP:DRV . — SmokeyJoe ( discusión ) 23:50 23 jun 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Podría haber sido DRV, que es el otro lugar para disputar cierres. Pero en este caso, el único problema real era si WP:INVOLVED se aplicaba o no, y me pareció que ese era mucho más el tipo de problema que se podía plantear en un AN que en DRV, que se utiliza principalmente cuando se disputa la esencia de un cierre. Pero con gusto publicaría un enlace al hilo de AN en DRV si crees que sería una buena idea, SmokeyJoe . ¿Tú crees? DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 00:12, 24 de junio de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Definitivamente no, no hay ningún caso en el que el cierre haya sido incorrecto. La pregunta INVOLVED es una pregunta de comportamiento, pero supongo que no hay duda de que ningún administrador habría cerrado la discusión de otra manera. — SmokeyJoe ( discusión ) 01:01, 24 de junio de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Bueno, se me ocurre uno que podría haberlo hecho, SmokeyJoe . Pero rara vez cierra MfD. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 01:48, 24 de junio de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Veo que Fastily ha reabierto el MfD. — SmokeyJoe ( discusión ) 01:03 24 jun 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí, SmokeyJoe . Y como no debo cerrarlo, ya he comentado extensamente. Como la respuesta fue una reversión de mi edición, me envió un mensaje automático. Había puntos que quizás merecían ser abordados en el hilo de AN, pero como esto comenzó con un cierre de SNOW, quizás no estoy en una buena posición para impugnar un cierre rápido del hilo, y no lo haré. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 01:48, 24 de junio de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
El rápido avance posterior de otro debe sentirse bien. -- SmokeyJoe ( discusión ) 02:35 25 jun 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sigue siendo un mal cierre por parte de DES SmokeyJoe. El tema merece discusión Legacypac ( discusión ) 02:44 25 jun 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me alegra ver que otro editor estuvo de acuerdo con mi punto de vista, SmokeyJoe , aunque el estado de la discusión era bastante diferente de lo que era cuando la cerré. Legacypac , si crees que mi conducta necesita discusión, sobre este o cualquier tema o combinación de temas, siéntete libre de abrir una discusión en AN, ANI o en ARBCOM. Dijiste que abrir la discusión sobre AN en mi propio cierre era un intento de adelantarme a una queja para ti. No tenía esa intención. Te quejaste de mi cierre al comienzo de este hilo, y aunque no estaba ni estoy de acuerdo, acepto que la queja se hizo de buena fe. Por lo tanto, lo puse rápidamente a discusión en AN, para que otros administradores y editores experimentados pudieran dar sus puntos de vista sobre si yo estaba INVOLUCRADO. Hice esto en interés de la transparencia y el proceso adecuado. No puedo ver cómo te impide plantear cualquier tema que sientas que necesitas plantear, o de recopilar diferencias para una discusión más amplia si sientes que está justificado. Aunque no estoy de acuerdo con tus opiniones sobre los borradores y el espacio de borradores en general, y con una serie de acciones que has tomado en relación con ese tema, reconozco que eres un editor que contribuye positivamente y no siento ninguna animosidad hacia ti personalmente. Estoy dispuesto a dar cuenta de cualquiera de mis acciones como administrador en cualquier momento. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 15:16 25 jun 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Debate sobre los tapices del Holocausto
Hola Dave. Veo que hay cierto debate entre los usuarios de Wikipedia sobre si eliminar o no la página de los tapices del Holocausto. He leído todos los comentarios y he llegado a la conclusión de que no debería haber escrito el artículo en borrador y que al menos una persona piensa que el tema no cumple los criterios para tener su propia página. ¿Se está cuestionando también mi redacción o edición? Es difícil saberlo en la cadena de correspondencia. Gracias por liderar el camino al explicar la validez del artículo. Por favor, avíseme de qué debería hacer de manera diferente al desarrollar mi próximo artículo. George David NH ( discusión ) 01:00, 25 de junio de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
George David NH, ¿puedes hacer el favor de vincular el lugar donde se produjo esta charla? Acabo de buscar y no pude encontrar ninguna charla de ese tipo. No está en Talk:Holocaust Wall Hangings y el artículo no ha sido nominado para su eliminación en WP:AfD ni está incluido en la lista de eliminación propuesta . Esos son los únicos lugares donde se puede sugerir formalmente que se elimine un artículo. DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 15:30 25 jun 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Tenga en cuenta que la página y su trabajo en ella también fueron elogiados por SmokeyJoe y George David NH . DES (discusión) DESiegel Contribs 03:02 26 jun 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola Dave. ¿Alguna idea de por qué la foto del lugar donde se escondía Ana Frank fue eliminada de los Muros del Holocausto (... Jcb la eliminó de Commons porque no tenía permiso de OTRS durante 30 días)? Está anotada como eliminada hoy, 9/7, por no tener permiso de OTRS durante 30 días. Gracias. George David NH ( discusión ) 20:07, 9 de julio de 2018 (UTC) Acabo de notar que la foto de perfil de Weinshall Liberman de Draft:Judith Weinshall Liberman también fue eliminada hoy por la misma razón. ¿Aportes o consejos sobre el curso de acción correcto para corregir estos problemas? George David NH ( discusión ) 20:25, 9 de julio de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Tata Nexon
Sorry, can we move the arricle Draft:Tata Nexon into Tata Nexon? I add the correct refenrences. Thanks and good work! --62.98.126.10 (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Broadridge
Hi there, just checking to see if you'd noticed you'd been pinged in my revised COI request on the Broadridge discussion page. I appreciated that you were receptive before, although it became clear to me then that I didn't have the goods. I think I do now, but it's been pretty quiet over there lately. Would love to have your input. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Request for adoption
Hi there, I would be extremely grateful if you would consider adopting me so that I may learn from an experienced editor like yourself the ins and outs of wikipedia. My passions are medicine and literature. I enjoy adding new content to articles and cleaning up references to articles. Tirab (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Did you know nominations/Louise Mitchell
DESiegel, please stop by this DYK nomination at your earliest opportunity; it is waiting on a reply from you to proceed. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My article on Deanna Kamiel
DESiegel - I believe I have made the changes you asked for. The article is resubmitted for a 2nd review. Katsheron (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It has been 4 weeks now since I made the changes. Just sayin'. Katsheron (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chicago Food Truck Festival
Hello DESiegel, I participated in my first deletion discussion for the Chicago Food Truck Festival. You also were one of the people who also voted to keep the article. When time permits please review how they deleted the article was proper. As they say a strong consensus was reached but I dont understand or see that none of the users in the relist discussion used policy. Thanks. Thelegaldude (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adoption
Hello DESiegel, I am looking for an adoptee to adopt me and to teach me everything about Wikipedia as well as the HTML coding language and much more of that stuff. Thank you, Yanjipy (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hoping For Some Advice or Clarification
I wanted to handle this the correct way, by utilizing the Talk page of this topic and I'll explain why I am here instead.
You raised some great questions regarding Patricia Kennealy-Morrison's Wikipedia page it would seem that editors and/or Admins who oversee this page are very resistant to including anything that states that Kennealy-Morrison's claims are, well, claims. I am hoping you can give me some clarification or some advice.
What I see as a very reasonable, well-researched article suggestions are considered "personal opinion" by a Wikipedia editor (Admin?) while Kennealy-Morrison's claims are being treated as being verified fact.
Link to Kennealy-Morrison's Talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EditPage/Talk:Patricia_Kennealy-Morrison
I thought of adding my concerns about Kennealy-Morrison's page to her Talk page but after seeing that my concerns have already been outlined very well and Kennealy-Morrison's version of events remain in place I thought I might be wasting my time.
"As editor-in-chief of Jazz & Pop she first interviewed Jim Morrison of the rock band The Doors in January 1969. After the interview, they began a correspondence, became friends and later lovers. She and Morrison exchanged vows in a Celtic handfasting ceremony in June 1970.[2][4][5] Before witnesses, the couple signed a document declaring themselves wed.[6][4][7] The relationship continued to be long-distance, which she says suited them both just fine. As temperamental artists with their own careers, living together for more than short periods of time may have been too much for either to handle. She preferred a nontraditional arrangement to "domesticity" and had no desire to "wash [Jim's] socks".[8] Morrison could be very difficult, at times loving and gentle, then suddenly brutal, or cold and distant.[9] By the time Morrison was on trial in Miami,[10] potentially facing a long sentence of hard labor, his at times erratic and even cruel behaviour led her to speculate that maybe he hadn't taken the wedding as seriously as he'd led her to believe.[4][11][12] But then Morrison would change his tune yet again and profess his love and desire for domesticity, claiming he was planning on returning to her, and to the Doors, in the fall.[13][14] Kennealy was skeptical by this point, as he was known to vacillate like this in his other relationships, as well.[9][12] Jim Morrison's sudden death at 27 would mean a lack of closure not only for Kennealy, but for the many people in his life.[5][15]"
Ordained minister, before witnesses, they exchanged vows, never filed the legal paperwork, but then Morrison would change his tune yet again and profess his love and desire for domesticity, claiming he was planning on returning to her - as outlined on Kennealy-Morrison's Talk page these statements have only been verified by Kennealy-Morrison.
The title of the book 'No One Here Get's Out Alive' is referenced on Jim Morrison's page as a means to to add validity to Kennealy-Morrison's assertions and yet the book depicts the relationship between Morrison and Kennealy-Morrison this way:
page 295
"In many ways their relationship was fairly typical for Jim. Except for Pamela, there was no one girl that he saw very often or for periods of more than a few days, and in the months since they'd met. Jim and Patricia had been in the same room probably no more than seven or eight time. Nor had there been many phone calls. A sheaf of oddly personal letters, gifts of jewelry and rare books and copies of his three privately printed books, but nothing that signaled a passionate courtship.
Nor was the manner in which Jim behaved towards Patricia different from his style with others."
It would be fair, and given the circumstances, more neutral if the paragraph started with, "In her 1992 memoir Strange Days Kennealy-Morrison claims...", or "Kennealy-Morrison says that before a minister and witnesses..." ?
A link to a legal document was provided where Jim Morrison signed and dated a benefits card and marked himself as single a few months after Kennealy-Morrison stated that they had wed has not swayed anyone to consider that the arguments on this page are not just personal opinion.
Am I wasting my time trying to get changes made on this page? If not, any advice on how to be effective in at least attempting to get changes made via the Talk page? As I said, this page is heavily protected and any changes or edits seem to be frowned upon.
Thanks very much for your time and I apologize if I brought this to the wrong place, I just wanted some insights if it turns out that I should proceed with my suggestions. Any insights you could give me would be greatly appreciated.Leyna010208 (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leyna010208 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mr. Siegel,
I am working on editing a page, doing some updates and trying to get rid of the dead link in the references (since it cannot be repaired) but I must be doing something wrong. I have repaired the other refs but cannot fix first link or get rid of the second. I so respect your help and opinion here. thanks always for your expertise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EditPage/Sons_of_Champlin Paulhus15 (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Mimi Mondal
On 21 August 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mimi Mondal, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Mimi Mondal is the first writer from India to be nominated for a Hugo Award? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mimi Mondal. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Mimi Mondal), 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.
Request for ""Info Box- - Person"" or "Info-Box Academic" for Samuel Adler (composer)
Hello DESiegal - If you have some extra time, kindly examine the article on the noted conductor and composer Samuel Adler (composer). A request for an "Info Box - person" has been processed and included on the article but appears to be subject to continuous deletion (perhaps because Adler is still alive?) Kindly consider using the "Info Box academic" template {{Infobox academic}} to rectify this problem as suggested here Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Composers, or perhaps assigning an "Infobox -Person" from the WikiProject Musicians Project (or "Info box Musical Artist") since Adler was also an active conductor who founded the historic Seventh Army Symphony Orchestra and was awarded the U. S. Army's highest Medal of Honor for services to Music, published several academic books on Orchestra, and Choral conducting, was a member of the faculty at several leading music conservatories including the Eastman School of Music and the Juilliard School for over 60 years, and was recognized by his academic peers by receiving several Honorary Doctorate of Music degrees as well as membership in Sigma Alpha Iota and Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia. I would be grateful for any insights which you might wish to share on the articles talk page here Talk:Samuel Adler (composer) Many thanks for your thoughtful consideration and contributions to the discussion along with my best wishes for your continued success on Wikipedia in the fututre With warmest regards...104.207.219.150 (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)PS104.207.219.150 (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)PS[reply]
Question about Mentoring
Would you be willing fo mentor me? And if so, what would I be learning about?
Thanks, A 10 fireplane (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DESiegel: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween! – A 10 fireplane (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
A 10 fireplane (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Image use
Hi, DES. I've totally confused myself with the protocol for submitting images for use within an article. I have a book cover image I would like to use, and which was given to me by the author, but I'm unclear as to what kind of disclaimer release terminology I need to use. Can you help me? ARD (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC) Angela[reply]
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, DESiegel. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
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.
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 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month.
Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.
Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next several days.
Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.
Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions have been removed.
Subject to certain time limits and other restrictions, your administrative permissions may be returned upon request at WP:BN.
Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — xaosfluxTalk 00:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I hope all is well with you, David. I notice that you often take a complete break of almost exactly 12 months and this is the 3rd time you've been desysoped for inactivity. You should be due to return sometime soon now, and I look forward to seeing you around again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, DES! I already thanked you over at BN, but I wanted to say that my intent had been only to understand what looked like such an unusual pattern, not to raise a definite objection, as your contributions have clearly been valuable when you do have one of your periods of activity. My objection is to editors who aren't really interested in regularly contributing much but just in keeping the flag, so they come back and do just enough, then wander off again until it's time to go make an edit and keep that flag. Your answer was great, and I appreciate your all-or-nothing approach, and also your intent to make sure you're caught up with any changes. It also explained the fact you hadn't dealt with the talk notifications in August and September. I also appreciate the fact you took the question as not being inappropriate. Best to you, valereee (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, You are welcome. I will say that it might have been better to ask a returning (ex-)admin not "why were you gone?" -- there might have been any of a number of reasons that were no one else's business -- but "How active do you plan to be going forward?" which is highly relevant to the operations of Wikipedia. I agree that "hat-collecting" is not a good idea for adminship. But I didn't want to get into that onj the noticeboard. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Kudpung. Its good to be back. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would have been better! Note to self. :) --valereee (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back.
Hello. I've just seen that you've posted at the Teahouse. Although we don't know one another, I was quite concerned by your sudden disappearance last year, and had hoped nothing untoward had befallen you. So I'm really delighted to see you back again, and trust you are well. In due course I hope you'll want to re-add your name to the list of Teahouse hosts as, a few months back, I undertook quite an update there, removing quite a number of inactive names, including yours, I'm afraid. With very best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your message, Nick Moyes. It was just pressure of off-line life, nothing horrid, as my recent comments at [[WP:BN}} indicate. I will re-add to the host list. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
}
Welcome Back!
Welcome Back! We missed you! --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 21:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Thegooduser. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see you are back. I was wondering where were you since no edits from you for a few month. Believe all is good and well !!! CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion of Brendan Gahan entry
Hello. I'm contacting you because I think you're the deleting admin for a recent entry I created, "Brendan Gahan". The page was speedily deleted, but I'm not sure why. Would you be able to help me understand what the problem was or problems were? If you could shed any light on the matter that would be very helpful. (If you were not the one who deleted the page and I'm contacting you in error would you please steer me to the right admin?) Thank you for your help. Scruitineer (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Scruitineer, Yes I deleted Brendan Gahan recently. I did so because it had previously (on 11:56, 9 January 2018 ) been deleted after a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendan Gahan. This made it subject to deletion criterion WP:CSD#G4G4. The expressed concern at the 2018 discussion was:
Promotional, reads like an advertisement with puffery (e.g. "Has been called the Don Draper of social video"). No indications of real notability. Notability is not inherited. The listed "Awards" and inclusions in various lists are of no real indications of notability.
While the shorter version I deleted was somewhat less promotional than the version deleted in 2018, it did little if any more to establish Notability. Note please that on Wikipedia "notability" is a technical term meaning "has been written about in some detail in multiple Independent published reliable sources". Please see Our guideline on notability of biographies.
If you want to proceed with creating an article about Gahan I strongly urge that you create a version in Draft space, that is at Draft:Brendan Gahan, try to ensure that it has sufficient source references, and then submit it for review under the articles for creation process. An experienced editor will review it and either approve it and move it back to the main article space, or provide feedback on any remaining issues. You might also want to ask for advice at the Teahouse.
If you wish, I am willing to restore the deleted article, move it to draft space, and mark it as an AfC draft. Let me know by replying to this thread if you want me to do this. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to explain. Yes, if you're willing to restore the page and mark it as an AfC draft that would be very helpful. Looking forward to learning more about this process. I appreciate your help. Scruitineer (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Scruitineer, I have restored the page and moved it to draft at Scruitineer. I urge you to find additional sources that discuss the subject in some detail to clearly establish the notability of the subject, if possible. Note that sources must be Independent to help establish notability. A subject's own website or social media, or those of a subject's employers, business affiliates, or family are not independent. Nor are interviews with the subject, excepot that if there is an introductory statement by a reporter that part alone may be helpful for notability if it is in some detail. Also sources must be reliable. Blogs and fan sites are not normally reliable.
Note that AfC drafts may not lie untouched forever -- if a draft goes unedited for 6 months it may be deleted for that reason alone. And our other policies such as the Biographies of living persons policy, and the policy agaisn copyright infringement continue to apply nto drafts. I hope this is helpful -- feel free to ask further questions at any time, here or at the Teahouse. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I sometimes use {{Speedy-Warn}} to notify taggers when i decline a speedy tag, but it is not automatic, and I don't always do so. Thanks for the notification. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 05:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, DESiegel. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there! Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 06:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]
Draft:Lucas Avish Dworkin
I tagged it as db-g3 because it is blatant misinformation; "He's won multiple national championships and even a world-wide open". On the off chance there was some legitimacy to such a statement, I searched and found nothing. An elementary school kid is not very likely to have won a national championship or world open, and I would be a bit surprised if such an event existed for kids that age. I'm not trying to get you to change it back to g3; I don't care about that. I'm just explaining why I tagged it g3. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hammersoft that makes sense, since G3 includes hoaxes. Perhaps i shouldn't have changed it. Anyway, it will soon be gone under one CSD or another. Thanks for tagging. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
resysops
Hey, DES! I'd actually intentionally left off the very recent resysops because it didn't seem useful or reasonable -- adding that as #19 has left two off the list that would have gone between the end of my original list and that one. (Plus because it's over my signature, now it looks like I added #19 and intentionally left the other two off.) --valereee (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee I thought in that case (which is of course my own) the edit pattern after the first desysop was relevant enough to be worth listing. But feel free to revert if you like or remove the item. I think it might be worth creating a second list, perhaps over my sig, with some you didn't include. There are some not noted as being "for inactivity" in the resysops page, but so listed on the appropriate log entries. A more comprehensive list might be of value to those considering the issue. If I do that, i could move #19 to it. What do you think? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DES, I think a supplemental list that includes #19 would be great! I had suspected there might be some that simply hadn't been noted as such, and more information is always helpful. --valereee (talk) 11:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information, AlanM1, but I don't really see that it matters at all. Even assumi9ng that Chukwunonso Ezekwueche is known to be User:Nonsky (which he may be, but it is not known to me) if he is in fact notable, there can and should be an article about him, and if he isn't, there shouldn't be. Whether he is blocked on Wikipedia and why makes no difference, unless he is alleged to be notable for his Wikipedia editing. If an article complies with [[WP:NPOV\\, demonstrates notability, is properly supported by sources, and in general complies with Wikipedia policy, that it has previously been edited with promotional intent makes no difference at all. Previous promotion is not a reason to delete, nor in my view should it be. I might add that making the connection between username and real name here, if it has not previously been made public, might be considered outing so please be careful. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The connection was, indeed, made by the subject himself. My concern was about potential and potentially undisclosed paid editing. Just making you aware of the history in case you weren't. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, AlanM1 In fact I wasn't aware of it. All I can say is that if the current draft is the best a possibly paid editor can do, it was a waste of money. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:ShopeenBest
And here we are again :) The reason I tagged it for db-promo is the language is promotional "dedicated to sell the best products", includes all their social media platforms...and the thing that did it ultimately for me is the edit summary on creation; "Biography of MY company/ecommerce store" (emphasis mine). This person is trying to promote their business. Admin Athaenara has already blocked them for being a promotional/advertising account. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hammersoft Frankly I think such a block is out of line, but i won't contest it. Many new editors do not understand that we limit to a single link to a subject';s web presence, particularly when none of these is clearly the "main link". If the draft is developed, that will have to be dealt with. Given that "Best" is part of the firm's name, I don't find that line, in a draft where more leeway should be given, excessively promotional. The edit summery suggests COI, but does not make the text any more promotional. Feel free to bring this to MfD if you think proper, but I don't think it would be worth while. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If there's one thing I've learned over the years on this project, it's that in situations like this there is no 'right' answer. You think I'm wrong, I think you're wrong, but wrong isn't some catastrophic outcome where people get in a huff and walk out. So, I'm *shrug* at this point. Someone was willing to spend the time to start the MfD. And on Wikipedia goes. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with all that, Hammersoft. The wiki will not fall or even be measurably harmed by this, whichever way it turns out. I have commented at the MfD, we'll see what consensus forms. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Taivo
I nominated my userpage for deletion and you blanked it. This was not what I requested. I can blank my userpage myself. I requested deletion, so that user:Taivo would be a red link. I hope, that this request is not against rules. Taivo (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, Taivo There was confusion with TaivoLinguist who was once User:Tavio here, many years ago. I blanked the page to remove the redirect to User:TaivoLinguist, and apparently did not see your delete request. I have now deleted the page. You are free to recreate it, or leave it as a redlink. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Elizabeth Miranda
Thank you for deleting Elizabeth Miranda as a blatant hoax. Unfortunately the user has recreated it, and is now removing the speedy tag. They have a long history of rather unpleasant vandalism. Could you delete that one again? I've also reported them on WP:AIV as very clearly WP:NOTHERE. Many thanks, The Mirror Cracked (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your assistance creating the page of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. I also seek to understand more from you about how to make edits of Wikipedia pages about orders passed by NCLAT. While I have made a few successfully, an editor Winged Blades of Godric has reverted one of which is factual and a latest information. The revert on Raheja Developers was done without any discussion on the same, called it whitewashing in the edit summary. As I checked his talk page I have realized that the person replies people using languages like "I don't give a flying fuck" and I decided not to converse to avoid such a discussion. I went into a BRD cycle, hoping that an admin would interfere but I realized that admin RexxS has undone my change. While I understand that it is considered as edit warring, why is the updated information not considered? Prof Pandaa (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Prof Pandaa Please do not edit war ,under any circumstances. The only way forward here is to engage with Winged Blades of Godric and RexxS both of whom are quite experienced editors and are very unlikely to be committing vandalism -- please do not throw that word around lightly. Moreover, it seems that this edit was at least somewhat misleading. It reads as if the insolvency case had been dismissed, but as i read the news stories you cited, enforcement proceedings were merely suspended to allow a possible settlement, and the tribunal was very critical of Raheja Developers, which was not reflected in your edit. I hope and trust that further discussion on Talk:Raheja Developers can lead to an acceptable outcome. Consider the many paid editors who have been active on that articel, and you can see why editors are more than a bit suspicious. I may post to that talk page myself later if I can. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DESiegel, apologies for butting in, but Prof Pandaa is surely aware that the place to discuss content is on the talk page of the article (or a relevant noticeboard if more opinions are needed). I am not impressed by the behaviour of any editor who simply attempts to force their preferred version into any article and does that repeatedly without ever engaging on the talk page. I an uninvolved with the article, and have no view whatsoever on the content of Prof Pandaa's edit: I only observe that it was made, and re-made twice in response to challenges. Thank you for taking the time to explain the issue better than I have been able to. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2019 (UTCg
No need to apologize, RexxS, If I hadn't wanted your input I wouldn't have pinged you. I was involved with the creation of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal reacting to a speedy deletion tag. But that does not make me an expert on every order of the Tribunal. Of course, I want to help avoid any edit wars that I can. I do not disagree with your comments above. It does seem to me that the news stories that Prof Pandaa tried to add here are relevant, although the attempted edit does not quite correctly describe their content. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking out the time to explain things DESiegel and RexxS. I think I have gained a fair idea of how edits should happen on the page, and the kind of response it has due to paid editing. I have already discussed the matter on the talk page a few hours ago and would wait for a healthy discussion to begin on it. Also, let me know if I can be making an edit now with content which describes the content more accurately. Will it still be considered as an attempt to edit war?Prof Pandaa (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock notif?
Hi. I noticed unblock of Rcorsini54, but that there is no notification on his talk page. Should there be an {{Unblocked}} added? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, AlanM1. Now that the ANI discussion has clsoed, and no one has suggested re-blocking, I will place the notification. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, as was the extended note about the issues. I saw the block and was surprised, too (with all due respect to the blocker, of course). Good job on potential retention of a slightly-misguided wikinewbie who might have some useful subject area knowledge to share. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Let It Be Art!
Dear DESiegel,
I am writing to you in regards to the Let It Be Art! draft. I appreciate your looking at it but to be honest, it was not based on anyone else's article or taken from anyone's work or quoted from anyone's article. I have re-edited the proposed article. It was completely written without any other's information but just with the facts pertaining to the play. I am hoping it will be accepted. Please be so kind - if I may ask your help to make it right and better, if you still feel it needs work. I believe the information provided about this play and the person it is about would be most beneficial to students and others in the theater in America and world-wide. Thank you. FitwithJanFitwithjan (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re citation requests and deletions
Hello,
I didn't participate in the discussion on ANI due to time constraints. Having read it after its closing, I would just like to address your comment on the essence of the argument and clarify what I had said. I did not claim that 'a request that information is properly cited is ... out of line' per se, or that ' 'readers are expected to use Google or other searches to determine if an article's content is correct', or that 'using a [citation needed] tag rather than simply reverting ... is ... a rule'. In general, my points were not about rules, but about what constitutes decent behaviour and common sense.
First, when one chooses to request a citation or outright delete a claim with no citation footnote attached, I think it's self-evident that it should be because one sincerely believes that one has a reason to consider the claim dubious, controversial or uncertain, instead of just doing it randomly, mindlessly, as a way of wearing out the other editor or in the hope that no editor will happen to notice and/or bother to turn up with a citation. This is not and cannot be 'a rule' that could be 'enforced', since nobody can prove and formally penalise anybody else's beliefs and intentions; it's just a matter of decent behaviour.
Second, if one reverts, and the other editor does not monitor the page (something which IPs typically don't), and no notification of the revert is sent, this is almost guaranteed to mean that the sources will not be provided and the information, however true, useful and widely accepted it might be, will remain deleted. The effect of such an approach is to eliminate potentially good work and valuable information, so, again, not 'a rule', but decent and constructive behaviour requires that one should avoid proceeding in this manner.
Furthermore, if an editor (not a reader) doubts the information and it can be checked very easily by anybody (Indonesia is a country? Really? It's in Asia? Really? Its capital is Jacarta? Really?), it is, again, decent behaviour, albeit not a rule, for the editor to check it himself and, if necessary, source it, instead of bothering others by putting tags or outright moving to delete the information.
The same applies if one knows too little about the issue to be able to have any meaningful doubts about it - say, if you don't know what an invertebrate is and you don't know what a cephalopod is, choosing to demand citations for the claim that cephalopods are invertebrates or directly deleting it is not a good thing to do, even if it doesn't break any rules. At least one might want to check first what invertebrates and cephalopods are.
This, IMO, is how one has to proceed if one actually wants good information to be in the encyclopedia, which should be the goal of all editors, not just the editor who adds the specific piece of information.
Finally - yes, ideally, every single piece of information on Wikipedia should be sourced. Based on this, every demand for a citation would be a good thing. In practice, however, it is simply not the case that every sentence is followed by a reference - and even when it is, the attribution may still not apply to every element of the sentence, so one may continue adding [citation needed] tags ad infinitum. In the meantime, people do choose what to delete and what to demand citations for.
Regards,
--87.126.23.210 (talk) 00:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rcorsini54...
...has reappeared as User:Rcorsini65. So far, no article edits. David notMD (talk) 02:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NPR
do you think I don't still yet qualify for new page reviewer rights? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 03:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I don't usually make those decisions, Thegooduser but I note that in this edit you deleted the signatutre from another user's comment, I assume by mistake. I also think that if the only way you know to submit to AfC is by moving a draft to a sandbox, you have some learning to do yet. But I recently learned that CASSIOPEIA does some training for NPP/NPR, and that user might be able to give you better idea if you are ready for that. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
deletion of signature was a accident/system glitch.--Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 00:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Change of Username
Hi i received your message of change of username. I have already requested it and is pending approval. Thus request you to give some time to get it accepted and renamed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLister (talk • contribs) 05:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
David Sereda (musician) wiki page, COI
hi DESiegel and thanks for your driection re: COI. I am indeed the subject of the wiki page, I simply wnated to update the page. I am new to the format and guidelines, and it's not my intention to scam or spam or promote, simply list facts and update. I am trying to figure out how to disclose the COI and when I do I will gladly add that to the page, along with sources for new edits. This new edit was motivated by a friend pointing out that 1) the page was out of date nad more importantly 2) that when they did a google search of my name, the sidebar result was my name and occupation with another David Sereda's photos, links and website attached, though my wikipage and song links were there. I have contacted Google and am working through their policies. I don't wish to go against Wikipedia's, so I thank you for you patience and direction. I will review and try to make amends.
Thanks again,
david Davidsereda786 (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Davidsereda786, I have placed {{Connected contributor}} on Talk:David Sereda on your behalf. Please send email with proof of your identity to [email protected] giving your user name and identifying the article David Sereda specifically. Explain thyat you are in fact the same person who mis the topic of that article, and you do not wish to be blocked for impersonation. In thew meantime, I advise you to create User:Davidsereda786 and place
{{UserboxCOI|1=David Sereda}}
on your user page to further identify your connection with that article. If there is another person by the name of David Sereda, and if that person is notable, a separate article might be created about that person, and a disambiguation page created to indicate the distinction. In any case, text can be placed on Talk:David Sereda indicating the difference between teh two persons. There is already some such text there, from more than 8 years ago. I hope this helps. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Teen Beat (instrumental)
Hi DESiegel, re [7]] can you point me to the policy that says how long an article has to exist before CSD#A3 applies? Thanks, The Mirror Cracked (talk) 06:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Mirror CrackedWP:CSD#A3 says Don't tag under this criterion in the first few minutes after a new article is created (I quoted this in my edit summary, IIRC.) Then there is a footnote (no. 6) which says: Consensus has developed that in most cases articles should not be tagged for deletion under this criterion moments after creation as the creator may be actively working on the content; though there is no set time requirement, a ten-minute delay before tagging under this criterion is suggested as good practice. Please do not mark the page as patrolled before that delay passes, to ensure the article is reviewed at a later time.Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion is a policy page. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 06:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, appreciate it. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 06:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Inkthis london.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Inkthis london.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) 17:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
David Bret
Thank you so much for revising my Wikipedia page and returning it to form by pitting back the reviews to some of my books, good and bad. David Bret. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.244.22 (talk) 09:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Damian Lillard
Look, I get where you are coming from and cited the date of birth in this case but there are two player profiles already linked in the infobox which confirm this information (which is considered basic player info much like position, height and weight). It is very typical that date of birth is public for professional athletes - the info appears everywhere from their team’s site to every trading card they appear on. Rikster2 (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rikster2 I can see where professional athletes are something of a special case, and I won't edit further now that a source is provided. I don't usually edit articles about professional athletes -- I came to this one from an issue at WP:UAA quite unrelated to his birth date. I still think, as I said on Talk:Damian Lillard, that such dates are in most cases unencyclopedic trivia, but it may be that in cases like this that is less true. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
THANK YOU YOUR ANSWER AT THE TEAHOUSE
I am relieved of the matter. Dreambar (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi!
I am totally accepting the opportunity to work on this draft but what further action should I take to assist with its final home?
As I understand, drafts are decided by admin at some point?
My class is reviewing two other subjects and they have no issues or discussions to learn from. This one seems to keep giving us several research opportunities.
And thank you for the instruction on my contribution. AKinderWorld (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, AKinderWorld. The key things that will be needed for Draft:Nichelle Rodriguez to go forward are:
Find additional sources -- independant, published, high-quality, reliable, in-depth sources. Not interviews, not press releases, not blogs, not passing mentions or trivial references, but sources that spend several paragraphs at least discussing Rodriguez and her activities. News and magazine stories are good, as would be any books published by a reliable publisher.
Use those sources to add neutral, factual, content, that helps indicate how and why Rodriguez is significant, and what she has done. If the sources include criticism or negative comment, that should be included too. No whitwashing. Any opinions should be clearly attributed to a cited source (In the text it should say something like "John Jones has that that Rodriguez ..." with a footnote to show where Jones said that.) Any direct quotes should be clearly marked as such, with attribution, quote marks or <blockquote>...</blockquote> tags, and a citaiton to the source of the quote.
If you seriously intend to work on this, you could post to teh MfD to say so. But keep it brief and matter of fact there.
Oh and please remember to hsue wiki-links to point to artivcles, not URLs as much a sposisble., I have changed those above in this section.
I hope this advice is helpful. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
Not so dreamy
Time to show our friend the door, or at least the bench for a while? PA at Special:Diff/925048359 had to have its summary removed but it still appears here, and now Special:Diff/925200382. Pretty mild stuff, but still, I think the outlook is bleak without a course correction. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to see all that, AlanM1 but thank you for letting me know. Those edits, while far from the worst I have seen (I was compared unfavorably with those concentration camp inmates who assisted the guards by one notable editor because I added unfavorable sourced content to the article about him) were well out of the acceptable range. A shame. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reason for rollback rights
The reason why I need rollback rights are because I need to use Huggle. Cheers! CentralTime301 18:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CentralTime301 The Huggle page says: Huggle is not intended for new Wikipedia users. All Wikipedians intending to use Huggle must be familiar with how to deal with vandalism before they start. If you wish to get experience in handling vandalism, the counter-vandalism academy is a good place to start. You have a bit under 3,000 edits, but have been active for only four months. The relatively recent edit warring and other problems cited in your previous rejections for rollback rights are still a concern in my view. But I will post asking other admins to review my action. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notification
The lack of engagement with my comments is sadly very predictable: your brief acknowledgement that perhaps "I want to promote myself" and "you should not do that on Wikipedia" are perhaps not equally reasonable positions lasted about an hour before yet another post calling removing self-promotion "edit warring" like it's a content dispute made in its place. There was, predictably, no response to my suggestion that, if you've got strong opinions about how self-promotion should be dealt with, you might want to take over from regular Wikipedians in dealing with instances that come to your attention so we don't have to. Self-promotional editing absolutely relies on these kind of administrative practices to thrive. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Drover's Wife I never said, nor do I believe, that attempting to insert COI content is morally equivalent to trying to keep it out, nor did I say that on WP:AN. But I do say that repeated reverting, even in an attempt to stem COI editing, is still edit-warring, and is not accptable. You said that my actions were disruptive and unhelpful -- of course I am going to ask others to review them, in case you are correct and I was acting poorly. That is one thing AN is for. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 06:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RE: COI advice on Teahouse
Thanks for the sound advice on conflict of interest, in response to my Teahouse post. I've been an editor for years, but somehow have never found myself having to think about COI issues until now! Neiltonks (talk) 09:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're a 'featured host'
As you are currently close to being one of the most active editors at WP:TH, your name and an image has now replaced that of an inactive host. I have simply used the default image of a cup of green tea which other TH hosts also display. It would be great if you would now do two things:
Check or change the 'featured host' image allocated to you. Edit it at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured/3, or undo my changes if you don't wish to be 'featured'.
Create a 'host profile' for yourself, and choose a relevant picture - click the 'Experienced editor?' button in the TH Header to formally sign up to create a separate entry on the full list of all 89 current hosts which new editors can view.
Many thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interstellarity I have a Teahouse host profile with a picture, I have had one for years. It uses the same picture tha is on my user page. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your submission at Articles for creation: Canary Connect Inc. (November 13)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Seraphimblade was:
More than half the article is a listing of non-notable awards. A highly critical article is used as a source ([8]), but not one bit of the criticism found its way into the article. Borderline promotion, needs to be written neutrally and include reliably-sourced criticism.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Canary Connect Inc. and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Canary Connect Inc., click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
:Seraphimblade I think you have the wrong user here... Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thegooduser I have already been in communication with Seraphimblade about the matter. There is nothing you need to do about this. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confusion, thanks. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
Redirect Extrachromosomal DNA vs Extrachromosomal Circular DNA
Hello and thank you for the reply. I do debate which page to redirect to, my original thinking was that the 'extrachromosomal dna' page was just more comprehensive and so perhaps a better option. The term ecDNA (and the biological entity) is a subset of both of these pages, so eventually it would be nice to have a separate page, but I feel that why I'm learning, I would work with the redirect.
I am still a little confused on how the redirect works since it seems that i need to enter the REDIRECT code on a page that does not yet exist, or i am perhaps not understanding yet and need to read more.
Thank you again, j
JC203760 (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, JC203760. Which page to target is a judgement call, but there is presently more of a definition of "ecDNA " and more about ecDNA at the Extrachromosomal Circular DNA it seemed to me. But either would do, i think. For the matter of that, those two pages should perhaps be merged.
Yes, you would edit ecDNA (which does not yet exist and enter #REDIRECT [[Target]] where "Target" is the name of the rticle you want to redirect to. If you want the redirect to go to a specific section, you enter #REDIRECT [[Target#Section]] where "Section" is the section name. You can also add a comment to the targeted section as described in WP:REDIRECT to warn anyone changing the section name to fix the redirect. Or an anchor can be added. When you save (publish) the change to the previously non-existent page, the redirect will have been created. It is as simple as that. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Judy Sullivan
On 21 November 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Judy Sullivan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the Apollo 11 program, biomedical engineer Judy Sullivan was instantly identifiable if she made an error as she was the only female voice on NASA's headset link? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Judy Sullivan. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Judy Sullivan), 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.
Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Chukwunonso Ezekwueche
Hi, with reference to my draft - Draft:Chukwunonso Ezekwueche - I searched around a bit today and found some references which appear to be relatively recent, and none of them are interviews. 4 of these came across as independent, while one, Glitz, am not so sure about. Can you please take some time out to check if they can be used? Thanks in advance, Vinvibes (talk) 08:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Vinvibes Draft:Chukwunonso Ezekwueche looks significantly improved. Several of the cited sources seem to have some depth of coverage, and none are interviews. That is good. But I don't know this field well enough to judge if they are reliable or not. So I will not to a formal review or an acceptance. On the doctoral degree, you might cite to a university pahge listing graduates, if there is such a thing -- or even to the subject's own web site. This is the kind of non-controversial detail for which a self-published source may be used. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 08:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, DESiegelif the subject has his own website, at least I have not come across it till date. University page I could look for, since such pages are usually published in PDF format. Its okay for you not to grant acceptance, the fact that you feel that it has improved is reassuring in itself. To be honest I logged in to cast my vote, and since I was already here, decided to do something about this draft. So should I re-submit, or wait for another week or so in case something new is published? Many thanks, Vinvibes (talk) 08:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vinvibes I would advise you to resubmit, the wait may well be a while anyway. You are free to keep working on the draft while it waits for review. And the University page is not essential, just a perhaps clearer source for that fact. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 09:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, hmmmm....its true that there is no such surety whether I would find anything new in the near future. So maybe yes, I will re-submit, but not tonight - will sleep over it and re-submit tomorrow morning. Thanks & regards, Vinvibes (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
Hello, DESiegel. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there! Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]
Nice to meet you
Dear Sir,
my editing in wikipedia is a mess and may be characterized as a running over me and my publishing interests, for example calling them vandalism but then vandalise the - often thoroughly reasoned - texts away that I put solely in the "Diskussion" = "Talk"-sections.
As good as the wikipedia-technology is, as bad seem to be myriads of users.
Furthermore I guess that the whole lots of explanatory texts are incomprehensible.
If I - can - stay here, I don't know.
Best Wishes
Lutz Fehling 89.15.238.121 (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry if our various explanations and help pages are hard to understand. Many people have put a lot of effort into making them clear, but perhaps we failed in your case.
Please understand that the DE (German-lanaguge) Wikipedia is a compeltely separate project. Complaining here about things that happened there is much like complaining to Coke about the taste of Pepsi -- it is of no use to yourself or anyone else.
You are welcome to edit on the EN (English-language) Wikipedia. You may want to create or use an account -- that makes it significantly easier to communicate with you, gives you certain privileges, and helps protect your privacy. But you are in no way required to do that. If there is any problem or issue on the EN Wikipedia that I can help with, I will do my best. As I do not speak or read German, I can be of no help on the DE Wikipedia. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Union Station Intermodal Transit Center
I had tagged the "Union Station Intermodal Transit Center" redirect for speedy deletion because it was accidentally created with quotes and I moved it to the proper title without quotes. Is there another speedy deletion tag that should be used instead? I just need this simply deleted since it was created by mistake. Dough4872 01:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Dough487 I misread the history, and thought the pagee had been moved directly to Pottsville station which is a long-standing article. I have deleted the versioin with quotees as G6 houskeeping, althouhg R3 would ahve been OK in this case also. Sorry for my error. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for deleting the redirect. Dough4872 01:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unresponsive Teahouse host
Hello, DESiegel, I have asked you a question at the Teahouse and you did not reply me for a long time and the question is archived. Reply me here. Link: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Archive 1035#Template:Unconstructive vandalism refraintag -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (🚨) 05:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No one is obliged to answer your questions, Bank Robbery, particularly not on a schedule. But in norder to be helpful, have a look at User:DESiegel/StatusSwitch as an example of how touse switch.
Did you read the help page about the parser functions?
As to XTools, iuse them myself, but I am not sure if it includes deleted pages in the page creation count. Probably, but i'm not sure. Ask the maintainers if you like, but only rough counts really matter anyway. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 08:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DESiegel: I read the page, but it doesn’t seem helpful because I don’t really understand. Does the code #switch really do anything? And who are the maintainers for XTools anyway? Are they at MediaWiki? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (🚨) 08:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And also, the switch is actually a template. It seems that the switch has a lot of parameters to fill in. How does it work? How do you make it only one parameter (status trigger) to fill in? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (🚨) 09:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Bank Robbery, the #switch funtion does do quite a lot. It is not actually a template, but uses a similar syntax.
If you can't, understand the documentation pge for #switch, perhaps you shouldn't try to create complex templates. But here goes an attempted explanation:
<TestValue> is the value being checked, often a parameter or something computed from a parameter of an enclosing template.
The various <CaseValueNN> values are compared in turn agaist <TestValue>. The first match is taken
The first <resultNN> following the match is the result of the switch function. It may itself be an entire template or sequence of text and template calls.
Note that the angle brackets here are used only to mark items that will be replacved by values (string or numeric). No actual angle bracket are uesd in the code. Study the example I linked to above, and see if you can follow it. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 09:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help. Now I understand much better. So the symbol | means if. (|abc = def is equal to if abc is true, def result will display) Am I right? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (🚨) 08:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Bank Robbery, that is correct. If the value beign tested matches "abc", then the result is "def", which will eithr be displayed, or possibly passed back to an enclosing template. Note that the value being tested is often a parameter value. The values to compare against are often hard-coded, but could be parameter based computations, or "magic words" or the results of other template calls. You might look at Template:Steps to Article (which I created). It uses a switch to test the named parameter "type", and supplies fifferent wording ,including different links, depending on the value of type. This a relativly simple and common use of the switch parser function. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I finished the template and tagged the older redirects G6 for CSD. Is the template now okay? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (🚨) 01:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
{{StatusUserbox}} seems to be doing what you apparently have in mind, Bank Robbery, and I see no obvious errors in it. Thanks for tagging the redirect. Is there anything esle I can help you with? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing more for how to help me and thank you for your help. So now I will remove the draft tag. -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (🚨) 01:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DESiegel and sorry to interrupt you again. I want to ask for your help: is there any kind of ParserFunction to indentify if the viewer is in mobile view or desktop view? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (🚨) 12:10, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ANI mention
Hi DESiegel. Just to let you know, you are briefly mentioned in an ANI thread I have just posted here; its not about you but I thought I'd let you know. WJ94 (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the notification, WJ94. I believe such notifications are required for even passing mentions in new ANI discussions. Oh in future, please place new topics such as this notification in their own section. Thanks. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought I had created a new section - my mistake! Yeah, I thought that was the case so I wanted to make sure you were notified. Many thanks for your help with this. WJ94 (talk) 09:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Adoption
@DESiegel: sorry for my untimely response, but here are the answers to your questions
what are your general goals on Wikipedia? To make it a friendly environment for users, and to make Wikipedia a credible source, create articles,and most importantly STOP VANDALISM!
What kinds of issues do you think you want or need help with? I have trouble citing sources, and mostly article writing, you can look @ my sandbox, and look at the article I have submitted in partnership with Blacephalon.
How much effort do you expect to put into editing, and how much contact/oversight do you want from an adopter? Normally, I expect myself to put a lot of effort into editing, and I only expect a little to a moderate amount of help from an adopter.
Thank you for your time! --Gumshoe97 (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well let's see how that fits me.
I certeinly work at makign Wikipedia a friendly place, as witness my regualr work at thTeahouse. I also try hard to build and improve articles and make wikipedia a credible and useful resource, althoguh never s reliable source.
Vandal fighting has never been my prime focus on Wikipedia, but I have done a fair amount of it, and continue to do some, mostly as an accessory to other tasks.
My activity level varies a good deal, but of late I've been consistantly doing over 1,000 edits/month.
I took a quick look at your sandbox, and I see several issues:
The lack of a lead section;
Inconsistand, incomplete, and incorrect citations;
confusion between in-universe (fictional) and out-of-univerase (real-world) writing. The reader is not always clear which is which, the draft should make it clearer mi9n several circumstances wehen it is dealing with in-universe statemnets
Non-standard sections "Publicatiosn" (which should be "Further nreading" probably) and "Special thanks" (which should be removed without trace).
I can definately help with all that.
Very well, do we have a deal? Sha I list you as "adopted" (a someehat silly term, but it has become common)? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DESiegel: Yes we have a deal, so you can list me as adopted. Thank you so much! --Gumshoe97 (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help from a new editor
Thank you for all your help a few weeks ago. Sorry I didn't reply earlier, but it's been one of those years. Gwen the Cat (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DRV
From [9], I thought I'd follow up and can't there because it's closed. I was referring to the nomination of the AfD, not the DRV nomination. Sorry I was unclear. Hobit (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Hi - thanks for your recent help. I seem to be learning to 'edit source' which is exciting for me. Pakoire (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright wikipedia groups.
Hey there! Thanks for the helpful information at the Teahouse. I also wanted to ask if there are specific Wiki groups dedicated to copyright issues? The ones I have come across have been parts of articles sent to me by SuggestBot, but I'm interested in taking a more hands on approach if I can. LampGenie01 (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, LampGenie01. There is not a formal group of copyright experts as far as I know, but there are people who take on issues, sometimes quite complex ones, listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Any editor can undertake this, of course, but there is a group of "regulars" who do most of the work there. I do a good many G12 speedy deletions, and handle a number of RevDel requests (more than some admins) for copyright issues, but i am not really among the Copyright problems regulars. If you want to help out on the less obvious cases of copyright issues, read that page thoroughly, and see who other isues have been dealt with. Read the archives of that page. You will soon come to know thew regulars in that field. Review that page, and Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, and WP:NFCC thoroughly, and dive in when you feel able. Members of the New page Patrol and of the Afc Reviewers are always on the lookout for copyright issues, but only as one of a number of quite different issues, particularly notability and promotion issues. Also see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 December 5 for a recent copyright issue with some contention. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response, and for the information. I'll take a look at everything you have provided. Is there anything I should brush up on for new page patrolling as well? LampGenie01 (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
LampGenie01, There is extensive discussion at Wikipedia:New pages patrol and at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School. The main thing is to well understand the difference between vandalism, well-meaning but unacceptable articles, acceptable but poorly written articles, and reasonable articles on topics new to the patroller. A member of the NPP should know and understand the speedy deletion criteria thoroughly, know which one applies to any given new page, and when none of them do. The NPP does have a formal membership, which permits use of some special tools, and requires approval. There is more, read those pages if you are still interested. We need more good NPP members. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Help
Hi Sir, I want your help in extracting some information from archived source. I'm asking you for this because I'm new to Wikipedia and I don't know how to extract information from archived source. I had asked other fellow editors to help in this but they only gave their views on talk page because they said that they are not sure about it. For details please visit Talk:Shamsheer VayalilThanks. (223.230.170.98 (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Hi, I think my request seems no importance. Is this so? 😞😞
Thanks. (223.230.137.155 (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]
If you wanted to comment at Talk:Shamsheer Vayalil#Stevie Awards 2011, your input would be appreciated. I removed the award because it initially failed verification, but I agree that it feels like yet another Europe Business Assembly or at least a Who's Who or WP:NOTDIR. As far as the SPA issue, the /18 contains the relevant IP but likely unrelated users as well, from the looks of it. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(just to clarify, the above comment is meant for DESiegel) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Ann Weaver Norton
Hi DESiegel, saw that you rejected the CSD on the above page with the reason "only untouched for 5 months". After reading WP:G13, it states the 6 months threshold is for human edits, and the last human to edit the draft was Robert McClenon in Feb 2019. Regards. 大诺史 (talk) 13:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, 大诺史 you are technically correct. I will delete the page. But it really is better if human editors leave G13 nominations to HasturBot, whoch should handle them all in the proper time. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I don't really like leaving this to the bot as other bots have been delaying the speedy when doing their task(s). I've came across abandoned drafts that were created as early as 2011. Regards. 大诺史 (talk) 13:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It does no harm if things stay a bit over long, 大诺史. But do as you will. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bug?
There is a bug on my user page. There are a lot of headings but only one show up, as the other headings merge into the only one shown. How can I fix this? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (🚨) 13:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Help with Retrieval
DESiegel:
I very much appreciate your comments on my USER:Ahjazzer talk page recently. I would like to enlist your skills re article retrieval. I uploaded only a partial draft, which I mistakenly thought would be responded to as such and that I would get some advice re my edits to the prose intro as well as my edits to the bibliography as well as their formats so that I wouldn't have edited the whole text wrong and then have to completely redo. It was declined due to being only a "test" document. I would very much like to retrieve the document so I wouldn't have to completely redo my edits, but it seems to have disappeared. My user name is User:Ahjazzer and the "disappeared" document is Draft:JohnRennieShort. Thank you! Ahjazzer (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ahjazzer. The draft is not in any way "lost" or "diappeared", it is at Draft:John Rennie Short. You can find a list of all your edits at Special:Contributions/Ahjazzer. You can get this same list from the "contributiosn" link in the upper right of every Wikipedia page. To see another user's contributions, just type [[Special:Contributions/UserName (replacing "UserName" with the name of the user you want to check on. When discussing an article, draft or other Wikipedia page, it nhaleps to give a link. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And npow some comments on the draft itself:
You should add appropriate wiki-links, as I did in this edit. Don't overdo it, and don't link to any article more than once in the whole draft.
Use the sites you have linked at the bottom of the draft to support statements already in the draft (as I did in this edit) and to add additional content supported by these sources. note how i resued one source multiple times by using the <ref name=> structure.
Wikipedia article may not be used as cited sources, but may be linked if they appear in the articel, or listed in a "See aso" section, as I did in this edit.
Every book should list the title, co-authors if any, publisher, year of publication, location of publication if known, and OCLC number if known, as I did in this edit. If ther are mulktiple editions, lis tthe first and possibly list any major rewrites. Don't bother to list minor rewrites or reissues.
Just delete the items that are shorter than book-length, unless one or two are bvery well known, at least in his field, and you ahve sources that specifically review those shorteer works.
Most important, find where independent people have written at some length about Shorts. Not things he has written or asked people to write Not anytjhing from any of his employers or close associates or family, not blogs or personal sites. Published independantreliable sources. Not interviews with him. Not press releases. Find and cite several such sources and things will be in good shape.
I hope that was helpful. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for all your advice—I uploaded a partial text this evening, revised according to many of the recommendations, mostly from DGG. I very much appreciated your recommendations and will absorb them and take them into account (tomorrow as I am exhausted from revising (partially) my text today. Ahjazzer (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Model checking revDel
Hi!
I wonder why you deleted 3 revisions from Model checking. I saw the {{(cv-revdel}} template earlier, but from it I were unable to figure out which page's copyright could have been violated. Looking at the history page, only 4 characters were inserted (but 35+12 were deleted) by the 3 affected edits - so they can hardly have introduced a copyright violation.
Partial order reduction can be used (on explicitly represented graphs) to reduce the number of independent interleavings of concurrent processes that need to be considered. The basic idea is that if it does not matter, for the kind of things one intends to prove, whether A or B is executed first, then it is a waste of time to consider both the AB and the BA interleavings.
in her/his first edit (on 10 Dec), so I guess (s)he considered this text to be a copyright violation; however this text was already present (e.g.) in the version of 2 Dec, before the edits.
To summarize, I suspect something went wrong. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply, also I changed my username from Gumshoe97 (You offered adoption for my account) To James The Bond 007!James The Bond 007 (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dan Shafer Article Draft
Hello David, I'm not sure if you received my response from the help desk msg. I appreciate you so much. Your message was encouraging and helpful. I listened to your advise and erased the discogs, allmusic, and wiki references. I added more related articles, as well as some changes. Would you please take another look before I hit re-submit. I'm doing my best and really appreciate your guidance. I hope to get my first published. My best to you. Draft:Dan_Shafer Jingleman2 (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is it OK for me to make corrections?
Hi David. I just wanted to check with you if you would be OK if I were to correct any mistypings I happen to spot in your replies at the Teahouse? Once or twice I've noted the odd spelling error which you'd not spotted and which might have confused the OP. I make tons like that myself (!), and especially at the Teahouse I'm reasonably happy if someone fixes an unambiguous fat-fingered error of my own. I didn't want to do the same with any of your TH posts without checking with you first. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Nick Moyes. You will find on my user page the following statement:
I am a poor typist when typing at speed (I am particularly prone to two-character transpositions), and my editing setup does not make it easy for me to spell-check my Wikipedia edits. (I routinely spell-check most other things I write.) I do spell-check major edits off line, but I generally do not spell-check smaller edits nor talk page posts. I apologize for any unclarity or cleanup work that results -- feel free to ask me to clean up after myself in articles.
So please do feel free to correct any typos, or ping me to fix them myself.
By the way, I notiece on User talk:LampGenie01 (where I am even now making a post) a comment of yours about reviewing your own work nd attitudes. Are you by any chance considering an RfA? While I haven't reviewed your work here in detail, what I have seen i like, and I suspoect you would do well. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks David. I did do a quick word search through your userpage for reference to spellings, but clearly missed it. I'll fix anything glaring that I happen to spot, but only at the Teahouse. Yes, you've got it. I've been procrastinating over a nomination for the last 18 months or so, having been very busy in real life, and still feeling there's an awful lot I don't yet know. But things are easing up, and next month will see my tenth anniversary here (though only five years of really intensive editing activity), so it seemed rather an appropriate time to give in to Amory and Ritchie's constant nagging! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage you to go ahead. Good luck. Might I suggest the Wikipedia:Ten Year Society, then? I have been an admin for quite a while, as you no doubt saw on my user page, and I still have a lot to learn. I have also had some serious real-life breaks in contributions, and indeed i have twice been desysoped for inactivity.
Are you interested in an additional co-nominator? I'd have to do soem checking, of course, but tentatively i'd be intgersted. Oh and I reccomend to your attention Process is Important and essay i drfted many years ago. others have edited it, but much of the current text is my writing. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the statement is in section 4, "typos". I don't think the word "spelling" appears in it. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting essay, and makes a lot of sense, though I don't remember encountering it before. Yes, I had noticed that you and Cullen both had the Mile High Club Ten Year Society badge on your user pages, so maybe I'll soon be eligible. Regarding a co-nominator, that's kind of you, though I do have two admins lined up already. As far as I can remember, the only time I've seen more than two nominators was in Floq's successful attempt to return to the fold, where (I think) there were something like five nominators. That said, I'm always open to positive criticism, so if you've ever seen anything in my work that you think is concerning or could be improved upon, do let me know. I've often thought we need a fourth obligatory question at RFA and that's "what concerns or reservations do you have about taking up the mop at this time?" For me the answer would be "not knowing enough yet" and "letting the community down". Nick Moyes (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Draft:Yasmeen Al Maimani
Hi, hope am not disturbing you. I created another draft - Draft:Yasmeen Al Maimani - and have looked after just about every aspect that I could think of. Can you please take a look and advise/make suggestions as to how I could further improve on it? Thanks in advance, regards, Tycheana (talk) 15:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
hello, Tycheana. On the whole it looks fairly good. But the 2nd half of the 2nd paragrah in the section "Breakthrough" seems to be largely copied from https://gaca.gov.sa/web/en-gb/news/23/06/2029-aa and this is not scceptable. This must be rewritten significantly.
I do not know the reputations of the citeds sources, and cannot judge their reliability off-hand. Please maek sure thst they are, in fact, reliabel sources with a reputation for accuracy and editorial control.
There might be an issue with the policy WP:BLP1E. This says that when a person is notable only for a single event, it is usualy better to write an article about the event, rather than a biographical article about the person. In this case the entire draft is focused on the event of Al Maimani becomming the first woman pilot in Saudi Arabia. It might be worth changing the draft title and doing a littel rewritign to make it clearly about this event, not about a person. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DESiegel, many thanks for the feedback, will rewrite the portion in question ASAP. Cited sources are noteworthy publications in the Middle East and although she seems to have received plenty of coverage, I chose these because they came across as being the most neutral. Writing about the event as in the title would be something like - Saudi Women in the Aviation sector....?? Thanks again, Tycheana (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DESiegel, done with the rewriting, please check if it is sounding informative and fresh now. Also, there is this particular user here who came across my draft and is pushing me to move it into the article space. I have never interacted with this user before and am actually wondering what their intention might be. What do you think? Thanks & regards, Tycheana (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DESiegel, my draft has been approved and is in the main space now. To express my gratitude for your help, I would like to gift you a barnstar -
Thanks & regards, Tycheana (talk) 05:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
hello! from James
I saw your message on my talk page, sorry I couldn't reply promptly, I really like the last idea you suggested! I would love to edit the articles that you may suggest.James The Bond 007 (talk) 13:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since you wrote this message on my page, James The Bond 007, I am responding here. Usually i try to keep conversation together, so if i message you on your talk page, please in future respond there, including a ping to notify me. (Or you can use a talkback note instead. Twinkle will let you do this in a couple of clicks.)
I was hoping you would suggest a topic or topics you feel some interest in. But since you did not, here are some suggestions.
Pick three articles from Category:All articles needing copy edit (which currently includes over 550 articles). Pick any three you like. Read through each and find any spelling errors, errors of grammar, poor English, or incorrect formatting. Fix any problems that you feel comfortable fixing. If there are any you feel unsure about, leave me a message here on my talk page describing the issue and including a wiki-link to the article. If there are any issues you want to bring to the attention of other editors as well as myself, post on the article talk page and include a ping for me.
Look in Category:Massachusetts stubs. Pick three articles from the category. For each, try to find an additional reliable source about the topic. (If you can't find a source, pick another article until you have one source each for three articles.) Add at least one fact from the source to the article, and include a proper citation, using <ref>...</ref> tags and a citation template in each case. If you can add more than one fact or more than one source, feel free to do so. Use a proper edit summary when inserting the fact and the source. When you ar done, place a message on my talk page. If you have any problems or questions, drop me a message with a link to the article, or perhaps better, post on the article talk page and ping me.
Do not worry about page protection on your user page. So far there has been no vandalism, and page protection is normally only used when there has been significant persistent vandalism on a page, with the exception of a few high-risk pages, such as those linked from the main page, and templates that are used in hundreds of thousands of other pages.
See if those tasks appeal at all. They are typical ways to improve content here. Happy editing. There is no deadline or time scale for doing these tasks, but please work on them before doing much more on your user page. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, and what can I do to improve the article in my sandbox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by James The Bond 007 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to Draft:Porygon Pokemon which used to be in your sandbox, and which you moved to draft space on 30 October 2019? I don;'t see any other sandbox in your contributions. In future please supply a WP:LINK when referring to an article, draft, or other page, if at all possible.
First of all, Draft:Porygon Pokemon has no Lead section Such a section should summerize the article, and indicate its general nature and the reasons (or most important reasons) why it is notable, and put it in context.
Next, i question if a description of a fictional creation such as a Pokemon should be describrd as having "Biological characteristics". Also, The "Biological characteristics" section seems to be written at least partly from an "in-universe" point-of-view (PoV). That means it is written as of Pokemon were real. The draft should make clear what is part of the fiction and what is not.
Further, if there are reveiws or other commentary about Porygon Pokemon that have been published by reliable sources, their veiws should be included, carefully attributed and cited to the sources.
I hope that helps. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
New message from LampGenie01
Hello, DESiegel. You have new messages at LampGenie01's talk page. Message added 15:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Not sure if the ping went through or not. LampGenie01 (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Xmas!
Merry Christmas everybody!!!
"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,
I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."
Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thank you James The Bond 007. I will take it in the spirit it is obviously intended, and i wish you a happy Christmas and new Year season as well.
You might want to be a little careful with such messages in future. not everyone celebrates Christmas, and not everyone who does does so in a specifically religious way. I, for example, happen to be Jewish (indeed my name is about as stereotypically Jewish as someone named Francis Xavier Donahue would be stereotypically Catholic, not that it is safe to rely on either sterotype.)
So again, Thank you. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will take note of that, and instead wish people a happy new year! James The Bond 007 (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Internet Fibre Channel Protocol
I am having a go at making this article understandable to non-experts and was wondering if you could tell me what you think of my efforts. I have left my effort here whilst I'm working on it. Thanks in advance. LampGenie01 (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So far, LampGenie01, your edits seem to be removing technical information, but not replacing it with anything. I would urge that while technical info might perhaps be removed from the lead section, it should probably then be moved into the body -- the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body in any case. But it would particularly help to add some less technical description of what the protocol is and what it does.
Also, the article does not currently have any inline citations. If you could find some appropriate source(s) and add inline citations, that would be very useful. See [[WP:REFB| for more on how to format citatiosn if you are unclear on that. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In future, it is usually better to work on an article in place, possibly using {{in use}} or {{under construction}} to avoid edit conflicts. But soemtiems creating a work page as you did here is the better way. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking behind using the sandbox to edit in was so that, if I managed to make a complete mess of it, at least that mess would be confined to the sandbox and not to a main page article. I will work on the rest of your suggestions though. Thank you very much for your thoughts on the matter. LampGenie01 (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, LampGenie01, that all versions are always saved, and anyone can revert to any prior version with only a couple of mouse clicks. So even if you "mess something up", the mess can be removed quickly and easily, by any editor, or by yourself. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Should I continue my efforts on the main page rather than in my sandbox then? LampGenie01 (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Either is acceptable, LampGenie01. The advantages to working in the actual article are that others can see and perhaps comment on your individual changes, and if some editor thinks a change should be reverted, s/he can revert only that small change and not all of your work. Also, you don't need to worry about incorporating edits that others may have made while you are working. The advantage of working in a separate page is that no one else is likely to notice or comment on your work until you post it to the article, unless you ask someone specifically to do so, as you asked me above. Also, you can try al kinds of odd things and no one will complain. Some editors work one way, soem the other, but editing in pace is, I think, more common. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
HELP!!
There is a user called Tinjaw, and he has constantly been harassing me on my talkpage, and even after me and a fellow editor left him a warning he didn't stop, please refer to my talkpage's deleted content for more information. James The Bond 007 (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
James The Bond 007, I posted to User talk:Tinjaw with this post which I link here in case Tinjaw chooses to remove that post for that talk page before you read it, which that editor has an absolute right to do. Please read it.
What Tinjaw posted to your user talk page page was uncivil, but it was not vandalism, and it was caused by your greeting, which aas i warned you above, not everyone on Wikipedia would appreciate. Please do not post on User talk:Tinjaw again, nor ping that user, unless you are invited to do so by Tinjaw at some future time. I am sorry you had a somewhat harsh experience, but that was a long way from "constant harassment". For better examples see my interactions with User:JackSarfatti back in 2005 on Talk:Jack Sarfatti/Archive 3 and User talk:JackSarfatti/archive 1#Editing Block and subsequent sections where the user threatened to go to my address (which he posted) and have me served with legal papers. You can read my response if you like. For an even better set of examples, read Gamergate. In any case, please be more careful with warning templates. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can I apologize to tinjaw? James The Bond 007 (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He already responded, and didn't seem mad for some reason, sorry about this mess I promise this won't happen again.James The Bond 007 (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So I see, James The Bond 007. You have apologized, now let it drop please, and keep this in mind going forward. I think s/he (I have no idea what gender Tinjaw may be) overreacted, but so did you. If you want to quote the bible: "A soft answer turns away wrath." DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, i didn't quote the Bible, I found this Wikilove message on another user's page, and then sent it to a few other users.James The Bond 007 (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I found the message here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EditPage/User_talk:SpicyMilkBoy James The Bond 007 (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy holidays
Interstellarity (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Happy holidays!
--Sir Bond 007 (James The Bond 007) (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
AlanM1 is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! and chag sameach! You've certainly done your share of mitzvot here in recent days. It's a good influence on the rest of us. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Merry Merry!
Your infinite patience....
...is lauded. Vis-a-vis JTB 007, I found this person actively disruptive at articles, at Teahouse, and especially on other editors' Talk pages. I know at one point the editor claimed to be young, but in my opinion the editing expertise suggested an older person - knowledgeable in Wikipedia editing - and malicious. I appreciate your patience, having originally volunteering to be a mentor, and especially so for your effort to provide a written guideline for this person to follow to acknowledge past error and commit to future good behavior. David notMD (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mut say, I belive tht you are seriously mistaken about that, David notMD, although I of course cannot be sure. But the impatience, the eagerness for advanced roles and recognition, the focus on Pokemon articles, the casual mention of learning about the Mid-east in school, and the tendency to imitate both good and bad actions seen from others, says to me young and inexperienced. Perhaps I am fooled, and inexperienced can still be disruptive. i also am seeing short fuse more than malicious, several times JB has apologized for one action or another I think sincerely. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I agree with DES. We've recently learned from experience with a couple of other similar users, with very similar patterns. I don't have kids, but my friends do, and it all feels very familiar, especially the compressed nature of time to them. Now, it could all be some great mind-****, but I don't think so. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
David, you are to be commended for trying so hard to support this editor. I didn't look in detail at this particular individual as I've been quite busy recently, but their actions and your responses to them did remind me of three young and over-enthusiastic editors I've encountered, all of whom I believe were on the high-functioning autism scale. One (The Good User) has gone on to do great things here, and seems to be getting the balance between school and wikilife about right; the other two sadly went on to get themselves blocked, despite my best efforts to guide, support and occasionally chastise them (example). One of those was also a CU block; the other for an unacceptably aggressive and rude (and out of character) outburst, and it makes me wonder whether admins and editors like us who help at the interface with new and problematic editors actually have enough training to understand the needs and motivations of particular groups of young editors, and how to best guide them most effectively. I for one know little about dealing with people with Asperger's, and there are precious few resources (apart from this useful essay) to guide us. Unless they've self-declared, it seems impossible to say to someone, "look you're causing problems; are you on the autism scale and, if so, how can I better help you?"' But I do wonder whether there's an overlooked issue here which could benefit from a bit of WMF attention for training and support from their soon-to-be-reorganised Community Engagement department, or some other area of our own community (such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Autism). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for those kind words, Nick Moyes. I interacted a bit with The Good User first at the Teahouse, and then off it, early in his or her career as an editor here, and I agree that the behavior patter was similar, although JB007 was in a, say, higher pitch than TGU.
I am always dubious about attempts to assign a medical diagnosis to someone based on Wikipedia behavior. I think it is far too likely to be wrong and to relay on stereotypes, unless perhaps the person doing it does have significant training. I certainly have had few in-person experiences with people who have autism or Asperger's, and reading Temple Grandin or The Speed of Dark is not the same thing. For the matter of that I have no particular training for helping young people with no specific medical issues, although I have a bit more personal experience there, but I have never been a parent nor a professional teacher.
I do think there are admins who are a bit too ready to block for what is basically "User:Newbie is a bother and is causing hassles. JB007 was a bit over the top, but I think I could have got him to redirect his energies. As to the socking stuff, I can't asses that without knowledge. Well perhaos JB will be unblocked yet. If so, we will see what happens. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I do not see howDavid notMD comes to the conclusion that JB was an older person - knowledgeable in Wikipedia editing - and malicious. No one knowledgable in Wikipedia editing would have spent months building up a persona, only to toss it away by tagging an FA for speedy deletion as A1. And JB's early edits simply do nbot show excessive editing skill. No I fear DNM is simply underestimating how quickly a focused youngster can pick up technical tricks and skills -- and JB never did any complex article space edits, no table work, no ref formatting, no template work, etc. Thanks again, Nick Moyes. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, David, I agree it would be seen as insulting to make assumptions about people but, then again, it is also a sign of good faith to make allowances for certain poor behaviour at the start of someones wiki careers if, supporting them as keenly as you have just tried to do, leads to them becoming productive contributors in the future. I also agree that it is too simple to block someone indefinitely for a few silly mistakes, assuming them to be malicious, rather than maybe imposing a few very short, sharp blocks as 'shots across the bow' so as to make them stop and pay attention. I'm surprised (apart from old RFA questions) we don't have something akin to the WP:Wikipediholism test such as "How well do you understand how Wikipedia works? Test yourself!" Maybe we have, and I've just not stumbled across it. Since drafting this earlier today, I note that Interstellarity has taken the initiative and put forward an idea at WT:WikiProject Editor Retention. I will try and comment there in due course. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Peace Dove
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ―Buster7 ☎ 14:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Holidays
Draft articles.
I was wondering if there was a specific area to create drafts in (and to submit them for review once they are done). I hope you are having a good day. LampGenie01 (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are two usual places to create drafts, LampGenie01. The first is known as "Draft space" It simply means any page whose name starts with "Draft:" For example, to start a draft about "NewTopic" one would create the page Draft:NewTopic.
The second place is in your own userspace. This means pages whose name starts with "User:LampGenie01/". So to create a userspace draft about NewTopic, you would create User:LampGenie01/NewTopic.
Pages in draft space implicitly invite other editors to work on them along with the creator. Pages in userspace do not, or not so much, although if there is a good reason other editors may edit them, or if invited specifically. Per WP:OWN, no editor "owns" any Wikipedia page and has the exclusive right to control it. Even one' own user page may be edited by others if there is good reason to do so. But most of the time, other editors will not do anything to userspac drafts unless the user specifically invites them to do so, and not always then.
To create a new page that does not currently exist, you can:
Edit any page, such as your default sandbox, and add a link to the new page, as I did above, creating a red link. Preview or save the page, then click on the red link. Then start editing the new page. Or,
Search for the exact name of the desired page, including any namespace such as "Draft:" or "User:". just as you would search for an existing page, in the "Search Wikipedia" box at the top right of any Wikipedia page, or via Special:Search. When search does not find the page, it will display a message inviting you to create it, Click the link provided to create the new page. Proceed to edit it as normal.
Does that answer your question, LampGenie01? Woulkd you care to tell me what sort of draft you plan to create? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, to submit a draft for review under Articles for creation, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft and save. That will put it into the pool of drafts awaiting reveiw. But there can be a significant delay -- last I checked ther were nover 3,700 drafts waiting, and not all that many active reviewers. But you do gain the advantage of an experienced editor reviewing the page. If the reviewer approves it, s/he will move the draft to the main article space, give it an initial quality assessment, and add it to any appropriator wiki-projects. A reviewer may or may not do minor cleanup on a draft. If the reviewer does not approve, s/he should give soem feedback on what problems were found. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly does. Thanks for the info. I found a list of football season articles for Japanese football clubs on the Articles for Creation list that I thought I'd like to edit. I'm more than happy for other editors to jump in as well, so it seems like draft space is the best spot to do this. I've left the list on my user page if you're interested in what I'm (hopefully) looking at creating. LampGenie01 (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, LampGenie01. Notice that there usually should not be an article about a particular season of a sports organization (club, league, team, whatever) until after there is an overall article about the organization. Please be sure that there is enough coverage of the season to make it notable.
I notice that you are working on Draft:2013 Kashima Antlers season, and that the current references are all bare URLs. Please read Referencing for Beginners if you have not already done so, and supply such additional information as: title of article/page; name of site/publication (should not be a domain, but an actual name); author if known; publication date if know; publisher id not redundant with name of publication; access date (retrieved date) for online sources; page number if source is paginated. These can help to understand the nature of the source, and to find it again if the link changes or goes dead. You can also search for a current archive URL and add it as an advance precaution if you are using citation templates, which I would recommend (use |archive-url=).
I hope this also helps. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly does. I've added the ref changes to my to-do list and will read the referencing for beginners page as soon as possible. LampGenie01 (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I think I've fixed the refs now. Do they look better? LampGenie01 (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but not yet as they should be, LampGenie01. Consider the first reference in that draft. It now looks like:
<ref>{{cite web |title=CLUB PROFILE｜KASHIMA ANTLERS OFFICIAL WEBSITE |url=https://www.so-net.ne.jp/antlers/en/club/profile.html |website=www.so-net.ne.jp |accessdate=23 December 2019}}</ref>
The title should be either "Club Profile" or perhaps better "Club Profile:Kashima Antlers" It should not use all caps. It should not include a pipe (aka vertical bar). It should not include he name of the site. The |website= parameter should be either "Kashima Antlers" or "Kashima Antlers Official Site. It should not be a domain name, and sould never include "www" or other thinks that are part of a URL, but not a name, such as ".com" or ".jp". Similar changes should be made to all other references. I suspect that you used one of the various tools that convert a URL to a citation. These are helpful, but one can never trust the output. They are very mechanical, and have no judgement, and are not as good as they could be. They have a tendency to stick the site name in the title, and use the domain name for the site name. One must always go mover their output and correct such issues. Some use incorrect date formats, also. Some mis bylines (author names) or publication dates when these are in fact present. This is no doubt because there is no standard for where these are placed or how they are formatted in web sites. A human can easily figure it out, but a program has much more trouble. Still this is already a large improvement.
Note that you should always change titles to title case, even if the source uses all upper case or all lower case or some other case format. If the source is not in English, please use the |language= parameter, and if possible provide an English version of the title in the |trans-title= parameter. Date formats should be consistent, see MOS:DATES and MOS:DATEUNIFY. You can use |quote= to indicate the particular wording in the source tht supports the article if this might be hard to find. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Block Him
He His Spreading Some Fake Propaganda Which Influence The Voting Patterns In India He Recently Done a Edit Regarding Jammu & Kashmir National Conference There He Changed Ideology Of The Party So Please Block Him Sir KumarVenati (talk) 20:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KumarVenati, please read Wikipedia:Blocking policy. You will see that blocks ar for very specific sorts of issues. Intentionally adding false content is one, but an honest dispute over content is not. In any case, blocks are rarely made unless a user has been warned, and has persisted in the same improper conduct after multiple warnings, except for a few very serious issues. You would need to show more exactly what Yashodhan Ganu has done tht is improper, and cite sources showing that the edits are clearly incorrect. "Propaganda" is a loaded term, usually best avoided in Wikipedia disputes. Be careful of Casting aspersions. Note that the Arbitration committee has said: An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums. In this case that would be WP:ANI or WP:AIV. Evidence would mean Diffs of improper edits. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:57, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:2013 Kashima Antlers season ref fixes
Hey Dave. I hope your holidays are going well. First off, sorry for the edit conflict. The reason I was continuing doing the ref descriptions using the automated tools was that I was going to fix them all after the rest of the article had been done. However, a gut feeling told me that it wasn't a good idea so I decided to go and fix them (hopefully). Is there still anything that I'm missing from them at all? Best regards! LampGenie01 (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just posted some comments on this subject to your user talk page, LampGenie01. By the way, you got an edit conflict, but I didn't, and in any case ECs have long since become routine to me, no problem.
It mis fine to use the tool and fix up later, or fix up each as you insert it, whatever is easier for you, as long as things are in draft space. But do complete fixes before submitting for review, and in main article space, please fix as you go or within a short time during an {{in use}} session. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:David B. Axelrod
Hi DES. I think I understand why you did that, but I'm not sure if that was the best thing to do without at least going to WP:DRV; it looks like you basically made a WP:REFUND request based upon a Teahouse Post for something that it not really covered under REFUND. Perhaps administrators are given a bit of discretion when it comes to this type of thing, but I fear that unless you intend to do so yourself or are aware of someone other than the subject of the article who is willing and capable to work on improving this as a draft, it's likely going to end up deleted per WP:G13 in six months or so declined by AfC if simply submitted as is. On the oft chance that an AfC reviewer, who's completely unaware of the previous AfD, decides that the article is borderline enough to be accepted even as is, the net result would be that previous AfD would've been essentially overturned outside of proper process. You might want to clarify what you did and your reasons for doing so on the draft's talk page so that others are at least aware of this and don't assume the worst. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add, as I tend to agree with MarchJuly, I’m not sure the individual at the Teahouse even really wants it back as a draft. They haven’t expressed any intention to work to improve the article, in fact they specifically said “I am not the person to improve, defend, prmote my own entry”.
I don’t believe, when they said, “yes, I would appreciate the restoration of the entry” they understood or intended that this meant having it as a draft for them to work on. Their only clearly articulated request has been a review of the previous decision or a “a further objective evaluation”, in which case surely DRV is most suitable. I’m just not sure restoring the draft solves very much, and certainly risks creating issues. Hugsyrup 07:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Marchjuly and Hugsyrup: Yes, the poster at the Teahouse, who claims to be Axelrod, and I see no reason to disbelieve it, did not clearly ask for a restoration, but there is really no way to do the kind of analysis sought without being able to find neww sources and work them into the draft. I have already spotted, in one of his deleted posts, soemthign that is at least a Claim of significance -- Axelrod has credit for a new poetic form listed in Turco. In case you don't know about that, Lewis Turco is the creator of the Terzanelle and a major figure in the "New Formalism". Our article about him says: A second edition of The Book of Forms: A Handbook of Poetics, originally published in 1968 and known to The New Formalists as "The poet’s Bible" was published as The New Book of Forms in 1986, and a Third Edition appeared in 2000. A listing in that is in my view significant. I intend to add that to the draft. I expect to do some additional work on the draft as well.
I will (and had already planned to) add {{oldafdmulti}} to Draft talk:David B. Axelrod, so that any AfC reviewer will know about the previous deletion, and have a link to the AfD. I will also be messaging Axelrodthepoet
Note that at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#Clarify purpose I tried to make it explicit that DRV was the place to go for review of such situations, and several editors, particularly SmokeyJoe and WilyD said such reviews should be considered out-of-scope for DRV. So, I'm not going through one. SmokeyJoe wrote that f a topic has been deleted more than once after AfD or other community consensus, then I think it is very good practice to use REFUND and draftspace to create a better draft. I think that draft should be submitted before bringing it to DRV which is currently the last word in that still-open discussion.
I take note of your concerns, and yes this draft might wind up deleted again. But the AfD was long enough ago that I think a re-try is justified, nor was there any serious problem with promotion, only with notability. Three-fourths of our current drafts are probably worse. I honor your concerns, but I think this action was reasonable under the circumstances. Mayne I should have insisted that the Teahouse poster go through WP:REFUND at least, but in the circumstances, it seemed of little value. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you or some other editor are WP:BOLDly trying to create a new article because you or they believe it's a subject which now can be written about then I think that's fine. I wasn't aware there was some ongoing general discussion about this type of thing at WT:DRV, but I was aware that AfD articles can be boldly recreated without a DRV when someone, either knowingly or unknowingly, does so in a way which address all of the issues which led to the article being deleted. In the past when I've come across something like this, I usually ask the closing admin or at WP:AN about it to see whether G4 might be applicable before tagging it as such. If the closing admin or another admin says G4 doesn't apply, then I usually just ask if it's OK to post something about G4 not being applicable on the "new" article's talk page.In this case, my concern wasn't really that the user asking about this at the Teahouse wasn't who they were claiming to be or was trying to create an article about themselves, but rather that they seemed unhappy that the previous article was deleted for the reasons given in the AfD. They didn't seem to want a "new" article written based upon some new sources or new information, but rather the old article restored (I'm pretty sure they weren't thinking about having it restored as a "draft") because they thought the AfD was flawed. That can happen sometimes, but I thought that was something that required a DRV. So, if it appears to others that the subject is just frivolously trying to recreate the article, then that might be something which would not only led to re-deletion but also the subject being possibly warned or blocked.FWIW, if you or some other editor, including the subject of the article, want to work on the draft and fix the issues raised in the AfD, then that's fine. I don't think the author should try and move the draft to the mainspace himself, but rather submit it to AfC for review or let another editor do it instead. If this time around enough improvements have been made so that the article can survive a new AfD, then that would be positive for Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DES. Thanks for the ping. There is a draft. Yes, I think that a proponent for the subject should submit the draft prior to launching a DRV to challenge the previous deletion. The act of submitting is a clear declaration that the editor thinks this draft is what should be considered for return to mainspace.
However, DRV is meant to be for challenging the deletion process, a forum for correcting an error made. The AfD was in 2015, which is considered a long time ago. The obvious question will be: What has changed since the AfD in 2015. Did someone find more sources? If yes, and if these are notability-attesting sources, see WP:NAUTHOR, then DRV is not needed. If no, then you need a good argument for why the 2015 decision was a mistake. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was pinged - yes, at DRV, if you wanted it restored to draft space, the response would be something like "Speedy restore, no reason to waste time at DRV". That said, if I'm following correctly, and no one is intending to try to address the issues that lead to its original deletion, it'll sit at Draft: for six months then get G13'd. I don't see any merit in the concern there's an extremely remote chance a G4-able draft gets through AfC; it could still be G4'd or re-AfD'd. A long discussion to pre-empt the remote possibility of a short discussion isn't efficient or anything ... WilyD 06:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@WilyD, SmokeyJoe, Marchjuly, and Hugsyrup: Thank you all for your comments and concerns. The draft has been restored, it will either be improved enoguh for an experienced editor to move it back to mainspace in god faith, or it won't. I intend to do at least soem improvement work on the draft, as time permits. I will also advise the Teahouse poster, Axelrodthepoet, and we will see what, if anything, that editor will produce. If it winds up G13'd, well, I tried. Whether in similar cases in future a REFUND request or a DRV discussion would be wise to hold can be discussed elsewhere. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DESiegel: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
hi DES, Thanks for the reply. I did not want to add this on the talk page due to the contents of it, so Posting it here. This is for your understanding. Pappu literally means nothing in Hindi. It is a common name for children in India and Pakistan. Though there are some movie related and cultural references of the word. In this case the word was used by some of the rival politicians as a derogatory statement trying to imply that he is stupid. This is overall useless for the pedia article. To give you a similar analogy, consider the case of Democrats in the US calling Trump a Bigot. You can debate if he is one or not and one can write a long list of reasons democrats are using this word, but at the end, the article on trump does not need to include that, even though there are many sources were someone can be seen calling Trump a bigot. In future if you need any help on teahouse related to complicated political issues, dropping a note on WP:INDIA to seek some expert advice would be a good idea. regards. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 20:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
New message from Whpq
Hello, DESiegel. You have new messages at Whpq's talk page. Message added 22:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Whpq (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:2013 Kashima Antlers season as complete as I can make it.
Is there anything obvious that I have missed or can I go ahead and submit it for review? LampGenie01 (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, again, LampGenie01. The formatting, including the formatting of both tables looks good, although I would welcome a legend to explain the meaning of the background color choices in the tables.
However, the part of the sports notability guideline known as [[WP:NSEASONS|Individual seasons}} says: Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that those articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created. Such prose seems a little lacking in the draft at the moment, but that is the only lack that I see. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted Draft:Shiva Makinian
Hi DESiegel,
How are you?
I wrote a page from Shiva Makinian but you deleted it . I understand this problem and i want help me if possible for you. i want clear this problem.
I am the manager at www.negahtheatre.com website. i want donating permission to copy material already online on this website. But I don't know What is text and where to put the license text on the website or page.
after it; Will this action solve the problem? And will I Can the publish: Draft:Shiva Makinian?
Please help me.
have a greet day,Keyhan narimannia (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
:The text of this website [or page, if you are specifically releasing one section] is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)
Including such a license statement on the web page would avoid any copyright problem. You should be aware that this license will allow not only Wikipedia, but anyone in the world to reuse or modify the content for any purpose at all, including for commercial use, with no obligation to pay any royalty or license fee. The only obligation would be to give proper credit (attribution) to the original source, and to make the content available under the same license. This license cannot be canceled, the rights once granted under it remain valid, so you will want to be sure that you are willing to release the content of the page for use by anyone at all to use in any way, including creating and distributing modified versions. (See also Wikipedia:Copyrights.)
Such a release would deal with the copyright issue, but there would still be the issue of promotion. Wikipedia is not to be used for advertising or promotion of any subject. The delet4ed draft contained some promotional phrases such as having participated in many prestigious theater festivals. Such phrases would need to be edited to conform with Wikipedia's neutral point of view.
The deleted draft also had some grammar and formatting issues. For example, titles should be given in Title Case, not in ALL CAPS. But that kind of issue can be dealt with by normal editing.
I did not check the sources cited in the draft. Before the draft would be approved, there would need to be multiple independent published reliable sources cited. each of which discussed Makinian in some depth and detail. Brief mentions and directory entries (including simple listings of performances) do not help to establish notability. Neither do interviews, statements by the subject or her business associates, nor blogs or fan sites. Three to five high-quality sources with detailed discussion are usually enough -- citing so many sources that the good ones get lost is almost as unwise as citing none at all.
I hope that all this would be helpful. 16:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
I put this text on the page as you said. But if you say to remove the (http://www.negahtheatre.com/shiva-makinian/) link I will do it.
:The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)
And if the deleted draft is available, I'll do the grammar, formatting issues and other things with your help (as it was great before).
Best regards, Keyhan narimannia (talk) 13:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keyhan narimannia I have restored Draft:Shiva Makinian after confirming the release on the source web site. I do not have time to extensivly edit it right away. Please:
Remove statements of evaluation or praise such as many prestigious theater festivals (unless such statements are directly cited to an independent and reliable source).
Titles of plays, films, and other woirks should be in Title Case, not in ALL CAPS.
As per WP:DOB a living person's exact date of birth should not be include unles sit either has already been wide;ly published, or hjas been published by the person herself, such as on her own web site. If heither of those applies, reduce to just the year. If one doe. support with a citation please.
Minor or less important awards should be removed from the table, major ones should be cited (add a "ref" or "cite" column to the table, perhaps)
The ratio of tables to prose is rather high. If more prose, supported nby relaible sources, and relevant, could be added, that would help.
I will make grammar suggestion or edits when I can.
Happy editing. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DESiegel Thanks for restoring the Draft:Shiva Makinian. I edited this draft as you said.
I removed many prestigious theater festivals and changed it to theater festivals
I edited the titles of plays, films and other work as you said
I put a reference link for DOB from (http://www.negahtheatre.com/shiva-makinian/) website. it has licence. And if it is not acceptable for wikipedia, i can remove the DOB. Because I could not put the (Birth yeare and age) in the Infobox person. if you can help to me, i do it and thank you.
Minor or less important awards is deleted. The remaining awards on the table are related to festivals that are important in Iran. The site of these festivals does not have an English-language section and I cannot identify them as reference.
I appreciate you for trying to grammar
at the end:
Shiva Makinian has many reference for searching the Persian language. But in English she has fewer references. I've used them in this draft. Can I use valid Persian references for this page?
Thank you, Keyhan narimannia (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gary Clifford
The article has been deleted as G12 but the website its infringing (https://www.morebooks.de/store/gb/book/gary-clifford/isbn/978-613-8-34285-4) appears to be a circular source. Read the first sentence of the shorttext. Clovermoss(talk) 20:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Clovermoss. I have several times warned others about that very error, so I have no excuse. I may well have been too quick on the trigger. I will investigate further and restore if that seems justified. The notability issues would still exist, of course. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the notabilty issues still exist. As for circular sources, everyone makes mistakes. Thank you for your diligence as an admin in addressing my concerns and your replies to me at WP:UAA. Clovermoss(talk) 20:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you restore the talk page as well? I'm not sure what was on it, but G8 doesn't really apply now that the article has been restored. Again, thank you for your diligence. Clovermoss(talk) 20:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Already restored, Clovermoss, and tagged with {{backwards copy}}, to prevent a repeat of this error. Now for the notability issues. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Clovermoss, according to https://athensservices.com/commercial-services/city-of-glendora/ Athens Services is a local, family-owned waste collection and recycling company that has been a fixture in the greater Los Angeles community for the past 60 years. Garbage indeed. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And later on that page it says "By Gary Clifford, Executive Vice President, Athens Services" so this looks like simple COI/autobiography editing to me, Clovermoss, not UPE. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This is the first UAA report of mine to not be a blatant username polciy violation, and I was too quick to act based on the information that was available to me at the time. In general, I try to be cautious about making assumptions about others. It's always possible that I could be wrong. Paid editing is one of those things that should be based on much more than mere suspicion. Again, thanks for taking the time to address all of my concerns. Clovermoss(talk) 21:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Help me sir i want remove my photos from wikipedia permanently Karki kancha (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
You should be aware, Clovermoss, that I am doing that in the interest of fairness I found that info during a WP:BEFORE search, prior to putting the article up for AfD. I still plan to put it up, but I want it to be as full as possible first. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I still appreciate it. I think improving an article to be the best it can be before nominating to AfD is still admirable. Anyways, I hope to see you around sometime in the future. You appear to be someone who is kind and considerate, and it's always nice to interact with people who are nice. Clovermoss(talk) 22:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Clovermoss, I do try. The page is now at AfD. I rather suspect the subject would not consider the changes an improvement, however. But they are all true and sourced. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:BQ and {{Cquote}}
I'm glad you pre-empted StarryGrandma's RfC plans. I've not seen an RfC-drafting process get that drawn out in years, and never over something this trivial. While you didn't write exactly the RfC I would have, it's getting the job done. It's unfortunate in a sense that someone else tried to hijack it with their own "anti-RfC" that is really trying to change the guideline not answer how to implement it (basically a form of time-shifted forum shopping against already-established consensus). But, in the end, it actually helps us get to an answer faster, since most responses to that counter-proposal have been firmly negative rather than it leading to deeply split camps and a dubious consensus. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DESiegel: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, Clovermoss(talk) 00:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For your helpful comments! Carol Berney Gonzalez (talk) 04:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Carol Berney Gonzalez I hope that you will act on them. I am pleased to be of help when I can, it is a large part of what I do here. If, after you work on the suggestiodsn give, you ahve further questions, please feel free to post here, or to come back to the teahouse. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Roger that! 50.53.104.78 (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If that was you, Carol Berney Gonzalez, you will want to be careful about editing while logged out by accident. It can cause confusion. It can even be taken as an attempt to evade scrutiny when nothing of the sort was intended. I use a small script which turns the "publish changes" button green when i am logged in, and I don't lick if it isn't green. It consists of one line in a user's common.css page:
#wpSave {background-color: lightgreen;}
In your case it would be added to User:Carol Berney Gonzalez/common.css. It isn't even really a script, just a display setting. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my, yes, it was me - un-logged in! I feel like a bull in the Wiki china shop! thanks for this tip as well. Carol Berney Gonzalez (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, Carol Berney Gonzalez. The reason i have that script is that I used to make that error several times a day. And that was long after I became an admin.
Oh, I just noticed something which may serve as a further example in the draft It now reads Her first major theater appearance was in the 1955 ANTA Paris production of The Skin of Our Teeth (link) with Helen Hayes, Mary Martin and George Abbott. but the external link goes to a Playbill page about the Broadway production of 1955, not the Paris production (although the leads seem to have been the same) and that page does not mention Bernay at all, making it useless as a source for the statement that she appeared in that production. Every link will need a similar check. Also, the mention of the famous stars she appeared with seems like an attempt at notability by association, which generally does not work, and looks bad. Just mention the production (if it is sourced) and let the source show the rest of the cast. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Notability by association" - valuable point and guilty as charged. I'll edit that out and check for other name-dropping then check all sources. Carol Berney Gonzalez (talk) 04:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate
It appears you've duplicated the AFD. Praxidicae (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Praxidicae. I have copied my nomination statementonto the one you started, since it was first. I will then delete the one i created. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Deletion of Images "Karki kancha"
Hello sir, I want to delete my pictures from Wikipedia, but i didn't get perfect reason please help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karki kancha (talk • contribs) 12:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Super-refractory status epilepticus
Hi, DES! At Draft:Super-refractory status epilepticus you removed the (entirely justified) G12 tag, but neither removed all the copy-pasted material nor revdeleted the offending revisions in the history. Was there there some reason for that? Is there, for example, some reason to believe that the first five sources here are all suitably licenced? – if so, attribution would be required, as usual. Anyway, I've listed it at WP:CP to be sorted out. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
New message from TheLongTone
Hello, DESiegel. You have new messages at [[User talk:TheLongTone#Tagging of Alaska Department of Revenue – Tax Division|TheLongTone's talk page]]. Message added 13:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
TheLongTone (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've got mail!
Hello, DESiegel. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 14:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC). 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.
I tried making a contribution to the Cerrolow 136 page about a month ago and it got immediately shot down. You had some commentary on the talk page there that I responded to but I'm not sure I typed it in correctly that people can see. I'm hesitant to make any further attempts at the page because it seems I broke some unknown rules. Can you advise? Calculuschild (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't violate any rule, Calculuschild but neither did Flyer22 Reborn a rather experienced editor, who reverted your change to Cerrolow 136. That page now redirects to Wood's metal#Related alloys. The version you created can be seen here but will not be visible to anyone who does not know to go looking for it. The talk page Talk:Cerrolow 136 has not been redirected and is still visible, but since it is now the talk page ofd a redirect, it is not likely to be often visited, and the discussion has, for the moment, died away.
There is no question that Cerrolow 136 exists, and I presume that the version of the article about it that you creates is accurate, although in copying content from another Wikipedia article the references were not copied properly. The question, not really answered in the discussion that took place on Talk:Cerrolow 136 , is whether the alloy is notable and a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article. Redirecting to a related page is one standard way in which a real but not separately notable topic can be dealt with. To have a separate article, there should usually be several (generally at least 3) independent published reliable sources which discuss the topic in some detail. The catalogs of vendors of the alloy would not be considered independent, and even if they were, probably do not discuss the alloy in enough detail. If there are books or technical articles or publications which do include such detailed discussion of the alloy, then a separate page would probably be appropriate. Otherwise not. Do you know of several such publications, Calculuschild?
If the alloy is not a notable topic on its own, it could be covered in greater detail in the article on Wood's metal, or in Cerrosafe, or in Low-melting fusible alloys, or in Fusible_alloy.
But the question is where and how to hold a discussion on whether Cerrolow 136 is notable, and where and how to cover it. The previous discussion on Talk:Cerrolow 136 could be continued, but it will probably not attract many editors. Discussion could take place on the talk page of any of the articles I linked in the previous paragraph, but please not more than one of them.
Alternativly, you could build a replacement draft at Draft:Cerrolow 136, and give justification at Draft talk:Cerrolow 136. If this gets to a sufficiently developed state, I could move it to the article mainspace and do a history merge. Do consider the reasons given by Flyer22 Reborn in the discussion on Talk:Cerrolow 136 as to why a separate article might not be the best solution. If you want to proceed with a draft, let me know and I will help with reference formatting as my available time permits.
Is all that clear, or do you have further questions? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just one further question which I would like clarified: If I stumbled upon data for another one of these alloys that happens to have no practical commercial use (maybe someone would call it "not notable...?") is there a convention to still provide the data we do have? For example it is known that gallium-aluminum alloys are extremely brittle and generally useless, but it is an important concept when dealing with these alloys and a fascinating phenomenon. Another alloy might be less interesting, but while we have it's properties why not provide them in a public location? I see the existence of these other tables of materials within the Wood's metal page, but fitting everything in a reasonable page size limits the amount of detail we can go into on each material it seems. If I am looking for a concise collection of data about similar metals, but Wikipedia only has room for a column that shows "melt point", I am forced to search elsewhere. Unfortunately these other material properties are scattered in small bits or buried deep in technical documents. Now I have done that work and collected all those datapoints, and would like to place it in a public location for others who may need that data in the future. Perhaps there is not enough of "note" for a full article, but there has got to be a better way to collect and share the data than just put its name in a list with no other information. Calculuschild (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Calculuschild there are several interrelated answers to your question. I will try to split them out so that they are clear. Please ask further if it turns out that they are not.
"Notability" and "commercial value" have very little to do with one another. If an alloy is of academic or technical interest, and reliable sources have written about it, it is quite likely to be notable, even if it has no commercial use whatever. On the other hand, if an alloy has net sales of millions of dollars per year, but no one beyond its manufactu5rars has written about it extensively, it is probably not notable/
Notability is the prime criterion as to whether thee should be a separate article about a subject/topic. Only notable topics should normally have articles, and sometimes not all of those (some topics that could be separated are better handled jointly, this is a judgement call.) However once there is an article on a topic, separate pieces of information do not need to be notable to be included, they merely need to be relevant, non-trivial, and verifiable. For example, if Low-melting fusible alloys is a valid topic, additional information about any relevant alloy can be added if it is non-trivial and verifiable.
Wikipedia articles are not limited to the kind of information already present. If there is a table of properties, but it does not include, say tensile strengths or hardness info, columns for those an be added, unless editors decide that the info is unwanted. There are various ways to get more info into a table. Tables can be made scrolling, for example. Don't worry too much about the presentation. On the other hand, we do want to avoid information overload. There might well be hundreds of properties about each alloy that could be listed and sourced, but most would be only of niche interest. Wikipedia is not intended to replace a source like the CRC handbook, it is intended to summarize key information from such sources. Remember that Wikipedia articles are usually aimed primarily at non-technical or semi-technical readers -- they do not aim to substitute for technical references of value largely to specialists.
There is no rule demanding that all such information be omitted, nor that all verifiable information be included. For some areas we have made consistent decisions on what info to include: for example, we usually do not include the street addresses of organizations, not the prices of products. Instead we cite and often link to sources that provide this level of detail. And there can be exceptions, even to such well established choices. For the properties of alloys, I do not think there is any well established list of what to include and what to leave out. It would be a matter for discussion by editors on the talk page of the article involved. But there is no harm in boldly adding such information, and then if anyone reverts, starting a discussion as described in the often quoted essay bold, revert, discuss. You must be prepared for reverts when editing Wikipedia. A revert need not end the matter. often it leads to a productive discussion and was really just the start of a change of direction on some topic.
I hope that this is helpful. Feel free to ask further questions. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still around :)
Hey DES. Apologies for not responding to your question at the Teahouse, but the last few weeks have been frantic to say the least.
In answer to your question at the Teahouse, I plan to trawl through the Web and construct something similar to the season preview section on the West Ham 2012/2013 season page. It could take a while though. I hope the year has treated you well so far. LampGenie01 (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear from you, LampGenie. I have bene a bit busy off-line, but doing well. Is ther any way in whih IO can help with you plan? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Vita Kin
Hi, DESiegel! I'm editing the article Draft: Vita Kin, I'm trying to improve it, because I think this topic is significant. I added new links to The Guardian and Vogue and new data to the biography. Can you move the page to Vita Kin? I will be grateful to you :) 192.71.166.25 (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care who created it, MER-C I did note the SPI. I did some copy-editing, and removed a little puffery. It doesn't look like spam so far. If the refs don't check out, I won't be moving it to mainspace. If they do, and seem to demonstrate notability, I will. Before your note I might have just let this drop, it is now much higher on my priority list. Telling me not to work on something because it was created by a sock is one of the better ways to motivate me to work on it. I'm not sure if I'll have time to look at it tomorrow, but I now think I'll put it in front of collecting evidence for the RAHaworth arbcom case. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 09:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DESiegel, the article was rejected again because the user was blocked. Again, we didn’t look at the text of the article and again the biased result. Can you please look at this? Thanks! 80.52.193.190 (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Chukwunonso Ezekwueche -- revised version
Hi, on this page I have changed all the sources that had been previously used except his university degree, and would like your opinion on the current lot of sources. Thanks in advance, regards, Tycheana (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Tycheana. The cited sources in Draft:Chukwunonso Ezekwueche are significantly improved. None seem to be interviews, and all look to be independent (except the thesis, which is fine for the purpose of showing his degree), and I see no reason to think that they are not reliable, although I am not very knowledgeable about fashion sources, let alone Nigerian or African fashion. My remaining issue is with the depth of coverage. The KuulPeeps source has only a single paragraph about Ezekwueche, and the others are not much longer. I would prefer a source with more detailed coverage, or failing that a couple of additional sources with coverage comparable to the already cited ones. This is probably right on the border for notability. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and Tycheana, when you mention an article or draft on someone else's talk page, or at the Teahouse or help desk, or at any notice board, please include a wiki-link to the article or draft (as I did above). It makes it much easier for the person you are talking to to find the article, and it provides a useful backlink from the article to the discussion, so that one can later find all the places it was discussed. Thank you. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DESiegel, thanks for taking a look. Kuulpeeps is a slideshow wherein they have discussed about 5 influencers in short. Will this link qualify as a reliable source - https://businessday.ng/life-arts/article/ezekwueche-nigerian-born-fashion-influencer-carves-a-niche-in-canada/ - I have refrained from using it so far since there is one paragraph towards the bottom which is spoken by the subject, so not really sure if it would qualify as a source. And duly noted about mentioning the link, will surely follow this guideline going ahead. Thanks again, regards, Tycheana (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, Tycheana. I think that businessday.ng article is not ideal. I suspect it is reliable, but I'm not so sure about its independance. If it were just "one paragraph near the bottom" it wouldn't be a problem, but it looks to me as if every paragraph after the fist two contains either a direct quote, or an indirect quote such as Ezekwueche believes his business strategy is sustainable and unique because it appeals to everyone, both young and old. He noted that nobody wants to spend thousands of dollars on a suit, ... where most of the information is comming pretty directly from Ezekwueche and not from the reporters. An articlke of similar length (or even not quite as long) which does not do as much quoting would be better if one is available. Still that one is probably better than nothing, there is some content in the reporter's voice.
Oh, FYI, I changed the section title so it would be unique on this page, and not have me jumping from the history to the previous discussion last fall about this draft. It is usually more convenient not to have two different sections on a page, exp a talk page, with the same section title, or the software treats linked to either as going to the first of them. No big problem. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DESiegel, I thought as much and that is why did not use it as a reference. Even though the publication is well-known, this particular article sounds distinctly promotional. So as of now its just the current list of sources. Also noted the change in the section title, and will bear in mind going ahead. Thanks for all the guidance, regards, Tycheana (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, DougHill I did see that, but failed to follow up. Please indicate the three or four strongest currently cited sources for notability, in your view, and also mention if they were in the article at the time of the AfD. If any were, please add to the list until there are three our four that were not, all of which you think speak to notability. I will try to review once I have your response, say within 48 hrs if at all possible. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Estrin's novel now has 3 independent reviews, giving it the "three essential sources". (I only listed one of those reviews as a new source as you requested.) It must be possible for a book to be notable when its author isn't, but I don't think that's the case here. DougHill (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Malabar Farm State Park
DES: On the Malabar Farm State Park page, the Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources don't want the truth about their incompetent running of the State Park. They are using their internet service (identified by their IP address of Ohio Dept. of Administrative Services which provides internet for all Ohio state agencies) to repeatedly remove a couple points about the barn their inept manager was implicated in destroying by fire & the health hazard of the Inn spring which they are under order to correct by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.
The site looks like a sterile travel brochure written by ODNR rather than containing pertinent information about Malabar Farm.
I am "Malabar Facts". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malabar Facts (talk • contribs) 21:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All that may be true, Malabar Facts. But your previous edits to Malabar Farm State Park and Louis Bromfield involved adding significant outsourced content, violation of the neutral point of view, edit warring to retain the unsourced content, and marking significant changes as MINOR|minor edits, which add up to Disruptive editing. And that is why I warned you on nyour user talk page not to persist in those kinds of edits. Note I am referrign here to your edits prior to my warning [here] on 15 Jan 2020. I have not yet reviewed any edits you made subsequent to that. Note that Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. Content in articles should be factual and verifible, and when controversial or potentially so, should normally be supported by citations to reliable sources. This was not true of your earlier edits -- I hope it is true of your more recent edits. Please take due note of this. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DES: I'll add copies of the agency reports I cited. People can make up their own minds Tell me how. I don't believe PDF's can be added?
But there is enverified information throughout the Malabar Farm page and it is a travel brochure written by the Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources.
Malabar Facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malabar Facts (talk • contribs) 23:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Malabar Facts, If there is a publicly available link to the report, please post the link. If not, and you have a scan, you can email it to me using Special:EmailUser/DESiegel. Please join the discussion on Talk:Malabar Farm State Park . Please do not attempt to edit in the content until it has been discussed there. And if you are the user Bromfield's Conscience, please abandon that username at once. See WP:SOCK for the relevant policy. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please do not post in sections about totally different topics, thank you. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh if there are unverified statements in the article, Malabar Facts, please mark them with the template {{cn}} adding {{cn|date=January 2020}} just after an unverified statement. This is the 'citaiton needed" tmeplate. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23 on the run
Yesterday he reverted evidence concerning himself [10]. He issued the contributor with a {checkuserblock}. This is an IPv6, which changes every day. I don't think he ran checkuser (what would be the point?) but if he did he wouldn't have turned up any information which was not already publicly known. Twelve minutes later he reverts more evidence concerning himself [11].
He then protects the page. Naughty boy - the Committee has emphatically told him not to do that.
If you're wondering why Thryduulf is being so cantankerous, well, at 11:15 on Monday he tried to trick the CheckUsers into mounting a "fishing expedition" and was knocked back. Ivanvector (20:07, 20 January) tried to justify his protection (he can't justify it - this meddling is absolutely forbidden - see above) by claiming it was to silence a "proxy-hopping anon". If he has evidence, let him produce it, otherwise that's a personal attack. Defying the Committee and making personal attacks are ingredients in a mix that leads to de-sysop or possible siteban (WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia). 87.75.42.131 (talk) 10:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RHaworth: Breaking news: Thryduulf has protected another case page. 87.75.42.131 (talk) 10:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And another. 87.75.42.131 (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Committee has never resolved to exclude IP evidence while a case is in progress (especially when it involves a party's interaction with IPs)
It's evidence, not "purely disruptive material" as Xeno alleges.
A quick glance at the content will confirm:
Examples have been given where Bbb23 has abused the use of the {checkuserblock} template and cut off talk page access to editors who ask him to explain his actions per WP:ADMINACCT, replying to the enquiry "Why have you not responded?" with the comment "I have now. Talk page access has been revoked." Examples have been given of administrators forging logs, including Future Perfect at Sunrise (who deleted a page created by Primefac page created by blocked user in defiance of block), Drmies (then an Arbitrator) [12], Ponyo and JJMC89 (deleting user talk pages page created by blocked user in defiance of block), Ian.thomson and Widr (deleting a single user talk page mass deletion of pages created by ----). None of these people has shown the slightest remorse. In fact FP@S, when asked to apologise to SilentResident, refused. 80.5.88.70 (talk) 07:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]
User talk:Vote (Y) for Change was deleted by Ian.thomson at 12:04, 16 July 2016 "Mass deletion of pages added by Vote (Y) for Change".
At 19:33, 7 December 2016 Jayron32 protected a project page (Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion) Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked.
The page Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion was indefinitely protected by Amanda (DeltaQuad) at 09:05, 8 December 2016. The page Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/**** *** *** ****** was then created by Primefac. Support !votes were removed and the discussion was closed "Speedy keep" by Dennis Brown after fifteen minutes' discussion. The page was then deleted Page created by blocked user in defiance of block and salted by FP@S. The log entries were subsequently oversighted by Mr Nobody.
The actual text of the revisions of 02:39, 03:12, and 03:23, 16 December 2016 (including the edit summaries) may be found by scrolling down to the bottom of the link provided. At 04:28 and 04:29 Drmies revision deleted them Disclosure of non-public identifying or personal information. The text of the edit of 02:39 is given - the edits of 03:12 and 03:23 are restorations. The two names which appear in the text are the names of two editors. "F P" is an abbreviation of "Future Perfect at Sunrise".
Green Giant globally locked a number of accounts. On the morning of Harry and Meghan's wedding he was asked why, since none of them was causing any trouble. He refused to say.
The request to Bbb23 to explain his block per WP:ADMINACCT was made from User talk:86.152.81.16 at 14:48, 12 October 2018. The editor's query to Bbb23 asking why he had not responded was made at 17:16. The response, three minutes later, was
I have now. Talk page access has been revoked.
86.16.15.46 made an edit to the talk page of a Foundation Board Member at 01:02, 29 April 2019. Despite strict instructions not to remove content from Members' talk pages (because they want to read it) JJMC89 reverted at 01:04 and Mr Nobody suppressed. The content was transferred to User talk:86.16.15.46. The page was deleted by JJMC89 at 06:44, 18 May 2019 Created by a blocked user in violation of block. RHaworth will probably restore it if you ask him.
At 18:37, 2 June 2019 Favonian rangeblocked for one year 2A00:23C1:D100:1400:0:0:0:0/64. This suggests that content has been suppressed (there are no contributions recorded).
Ponyo (don't go - a thousand-mile long cold plume has just arrived and Drmies says that spring won't arrive without you) regularly deletes editors' user talk pages Creation by a blocked user in violation of block. An example may be seen in her deletion log at 22:57, 22 July 2019.
Widr regularly deletes editors' user talk pages with log entry Mass deletion of pages added by ----. See for example at 06:06, 14 January 2020 and 17:49, 11 January 2020.
@Deb: @RHaworth: Thryduulf is playing the role of Donald Trump in this investigation. 86.172.112.5 (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Xeno has only been on the Committee for 24 days. If his intention is to continue to operate in non-collegial fashion and make mendacious log entries he should resign. If he's not prepared to do the honourable thing he should at least recuse. He appears to be a kid who plays "shoot-'em-up" games on the internet. His username was originally "Xenocidic". An editor said "it gives me the creeps" because it refers to "the deliberate and systematic extermination" of "either stranger or guest" (i.e. genocide).
I have just been watching a Holocaust video at the local library. Among the testimonies a Polish survivor recounted how his mother carried a piece of fabric to the assembly point. A malnourished Jewish boy came up and asked her to give him the fabric. She asked him why and he said "I want to kill myself". She handed it to him, he took it to an outhouse, tore it into strips and hanged himself. Holocaust Memorial Day is next Monday, the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.
Xeno's comment What tool do you need to unf**k it?" (16:27, 28 August 2009), linking to Kegel exercise (you learn something new here every day) led Durova to remark There's a minimal level of decorum for open public discourse and this falls well below the line during a discussion deploring his misogynistic attitude. His RfB bombed after Hammersoft commented (16:00, 4 September 2009):
Further, this editor arbitrarily makes up rules on the fly to block people whom he finds lacking.
and at 16:31:
According to Xeno, lack of editing in the mainspace is a criteria [sic] for being indefinitely banned from the project.
Of his last 150 edits, just two are to mainspace.
He also has a habit of hiding his lack of knowledge by giving misleading information (something he wrongly accuses @RHaworth: of doing). For example, 22 minutes after he told an editor I can't be arsed another editor asked him for advice on reporting alleged administrator abuse at pt:wp. While admitting "I don't speak the language at all" he then told the editor to post at pt:Wikipédia:Votações, claiming it is the local equivalent of ANI. In fact it's the local equivalent of RfC. The poor editor had to ask someone else (which (s)he did at 14:13, 20 May 2009). 92.10.235.150 (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RHaworth: I see Thryduulf is a regular at Penderel's Oak. 92.10.235.150 (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question about deleting redirects to make way for a page move
Since I'd been following Draft:Chris Duffey, the move and deletion log entries showed up in my Watchlist. I noted that JonathanX0X0, in his good faith patrolling, was able to move it from the Main: namespace to Draft: namespace by deleting and overwriting the redirect in the draft namespace. But, looking at his user group privileges, I'm only seeing him as "autoconfirmed." How is he able to do that? I thought you needed page mover privileges to do that?
Cheers, --Doug Mehus T·C 17:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Dmehus This is an exception. As it says in WP:MOVE#Moving over a redirect, If the new title exists but is a redirect to the old title with a single line in the page history, then you can rename the page. The most common case in which this applies is that of re-renaming a page back to its original name. ... It is the only way non-administrators can get entries in the deletion log. That exception applies to any auto-confirmed user. Otherwise an admin (or I think a File Mover) must do the move, or do a G6 deletion in advance to clear the way. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DESiegel, Ah, okay, so as an extendedconfirmed user, I guess that applies to me. I've never tried to move a page over a redirect as I've always just initiated a move discussion. In the case of Talk:Sirius XM Canada, which proposed to move SiriusXM Canada to Sirius XM Canada to remove the unnecessary camel case for consistency, could I have just made that move, or was it correct for me to discuss it? Doug Mehus T·C 18:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it wouldn't have applied to me because there was more than one line at SiriusXM Canada (now former page name) in the edit history; however, I never checked the old redirect Sirius XM Canada (now current page name). If there was only one line in the edit history, I probably could've moved this. Otherwise, I wonder if I could've proposed the move as an uncontroversial technical request? In any case, it's been moved, thanks to Amakuru closing the discussion and completing the move. Doug Mehus T·C 18:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: the question about whether it's OK to just make the move (or request it at WP:RM/TR) versus starting a full requested-move discussion is more to do with whether it's a controversial move or not, than with whether you're technically able to do it. That's really a matter of judgement though. Is anyone likely to challenge the move, or disagree with it? If so, start a discussion. If not, just move it. In the case of Sirius XM Canada, you probably could have made a fair case for uncontroversial, given that it matched the other move... although in the discussion someone did actually oppose the move, so it's not always an obvious decision. — Amakuru (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru, Thanks for clarifying. That's sort of the way I was feeling; it seemed like a justifiable non-controversial move, but it did garner some soft opposition from one editor, so, like you say, it's not always clear. That said, having done the discussion, at least now we have a record on the talkpage of the move so will be more difficult to challenge. One can always propose to move it back, but having had that discussion, they would likely need to initiate a new discussion. Doug Mehus T·C 21:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: Exactly that. If you make a WP:BOLD move, because you think it's uncontroversial, and then it's challenged within the next few months after the move, someone can legitimately move it back and recommend that you start a discussion on the matter. Whereas if you put it through an RM and there's consensus to move (as there was here), then that immediately becomes the new stable title and another RM is required to move elsewhere. — Amakuru (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Dmehus, I absolutely agree with Amakuru here. The "rule" I quoted above has to do with when a given editor is technically able to do a given move. It does not answer whether the move should be done. When a move is clearly uncontroversial -- say there is a spellign error in a title, or a page has been draftified, and greatly improved, with the issues that lead to the move to drat all being fixed, any edito5r who is technically able may and quite possiblyt should do the move. If there is any serious question about the move being controversial or likely to be objected to in good faith, obtain consensus first via a move discussion, normally on the talk page of the article concerned (or on one of them with links from the others, if several articles are involved). I have on a number of occasions been asked to do a move as an admin because a redirect or dab page is in the way, but have declined because I felt advance consensus was needed. So it is not about permissions, it is about good judgement and consensus. If a move is uncontroversial, otr if consensus has been established to make it, any editor in good standing may make it if technically able, or ask an admin to help if admin rights are needed. In such a case the admin normally confirms consensus, or that the move is pretty clealry uncontroversial, and if so makes it. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unless, of course, you'd like to express an opinion on the above MfD, I was wondering if you might like assess the consensus of that MfD? It's been open for 11 days now (4 days past the the 7 day mark), without a relisting. Relisting, of course, is certainly possible, but there does seem to be at least some degree of consensus forming based on the arguments provided. I feel as though a relisting may not be necessary in this case. It's the oldest business on the MfD docket currently.
Cheers, --Doug Mehus T·C 22:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects for Sheila Gunn Reid and Christopher Wilson (reporter)
I had tagged the above redirects for RfD as not mentioned in the target article, Rebel News, following my closing a move discussion and attempting to update the backlinks. However, in so doing, I noticed these redirects were created by a banned sockpuppet account, User:VivaSlava. I'm not normally one who thinks everything of a sockpuppet/sockpuppet master account should be deleted, but these redirects had, in my view, no significant edits.
Glades12 removed the CSD tags on the premise that a previous diff had a single citation reference added to each. Personally, I view adding citations as minor edits, so I think this qualifies. Nevertheless, since they were created by the sockpuppet account, not the master account, my understanding is that they can be deleted regardless. Each had less than five to ten edits, give or take, and no meaningful content was ever added.
Can you clarify my thinking and/or confirm if CSD G5 was appropriate in this case?
Thanks, --Doug Mehus T·C 15:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One way of telling when an edit has been SUPPRESSED although the log says it has been revision deleted is to check the block log. 78.145.24.223 has no contributions recorded although Bradv blocked it for a week at 14:33, 17 January 2020 for alleged "Long-term abuse". If calling out corrupt Arbitrators is "long-term abuse" be Harvey Weinstein's guest.
At 17:00, 25 January 2020 the edit of 92.10.235.150, 13:25, 25 January to User talk:Berean Hunter was revision deleted. During the next 45 minutes somebody evidently panicked, because by 17:45 the edit was back on view and the revision deletion log had been suppressed. Again, at 11:35, 17 January 2020 Thryduulf blocked 82.69.5.58 for one week for ""Long-term abuse". Once again, a glance at the content shows that a place at Harvey Weinstein's table should be booked for him alongside Bradv. Read on for a transcript of 78.145.24.223's and 82.69.5.58's evidence.
It will be recalled that Katie slipped up in her revision deletion cover-up because she left in the edit history the information that Oxford editor 82.69.5.58 last edited at 10:45, 17 January 2020 and London editor 78.145.24.223 first edited at 11:34 - she alleges that both edits are by the same person. A transcript of 89.240.119.11's's evidence on the matter is given later. I note that 82.69.5.58 has now been re-allocated to Hastings, Sussex - that's almost as far from London as Oxford is.
This is all very crafty - the revision deletion log for Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Workshop has been doctored to show that only fourteen revisions were deleted - all 82.69.5.58's edits since last summer (including the crucial 10:45 one) have disappeared into thin air along with all edits of 78.145.24.223 (including the crucial 11:34 one). The block log is again the giveaway - 78.145.24.223 was blocked for one week by Bradv at 14:33, 17 January 2020, again for "Long-term abuse". Also sucked into the black hole is Thryduulf's reversion of 82.69.5.58 at 11:34 (Katie left in his reference to the IP), 78.145.24.223's reversion of Thryduulf at 11:36, and Thryduulf's reversion of 78.145.24.233 at 11:37 (again Katie left in his reference to the IP).
Here are the comments of 82.69.5.58:
Here Tony Ballioni destroys his own case. He confirms that a CU block involves private information unavailable to other administrators. Since the information that Ponni Concessao and Velanatti are the same person was publicly revealed there was no private information involved. His final sentence is correct but irrelevant. - 82.69.5.58 09:58, 17 January 2020
Why is this here? If Ballioni is insinuating that RHaworth has never read the blocking/deletion policy during his fifteen years he is talking baloney because he cannot know that. I can name a number of administrators who seem unaware of policy - for example JJMC89 and Ponyo who delete user talk pages "G5.Page created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block" and Ian.thomson and Widr who log the deletion of a single user talk page (and nothing else) as "G5.Mass deletion of pages created by ----." - 82.69.5.58 09:58, 17 January 2020
On the contrary, @RHaworth: followed policy to the letter, as evidenced by Bbb23's unblock when he awoke from his slumbers. - 82.69.5.58 09:58, 17 January 2020
Nonsense. The oversighters had shown themselves to be incompetent - directing the editor back to them would be sending him on a fool's errand, especially as Bbb23 himself had just said that complaints against the oversighters should be directed to ArbCom, who are the people who gave them the job and presumably can sack them. Rhaworth correctly described suppression as a process whereby persons who cannot be identified delete content which cannot be identified once it disappears. The bad faith towards competent administrators seems to be endemic - witness this extract from "Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Page 2":
One Wikipedian, a five year veteran iirc, recently tried to call [redacted] out on Wikipedia, to the Founder no less. By pointing out his disgraceful standards of conduct, specifically in how he communicates with others, he hoped to avoid another embarrassing BWilkins/DangerousPanda saga. For his trouble, he was of course rounded on and subjected to threats and intimidation. - 41.109.33.250 23:12, 26 May 2018
[redacted] served on the Committee. - 82.69.5.58 09:58, 17 January 2020
Now here are 78.145.24.223's comments:
The Committee has directed that evidence may be removed from case pages only by Arbitrators and clerks. - 78.145.24.223 11:44, 17 January 2020
Thryduulf's action is WP:INVOLVED tool abuse anyway as he has just demonstrated that he has a dog in this race. - 78.145.24.223 11:53, 17 January 2020
And even if didn't [sic] have a vested interest in the removal of evidence supportive of RHaworth, once he edited the page he became WP:INVOLVED to the extent that it would be tool abuse to then protect on his preferred version. - 78.145.24.223 12:09, 17 January 2020
Note that the one edit revision deleted by Katie from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Workshop at 15:31. 17 January 2020 and the five edits she revision deleted at 16:12 (all good faith edits) include comments by registered editors who were not blocked for participating. She nevertheless logged all of them as bad faith comments coming from alleged socks of Flow234.
really Here's the report from 89.240.119.11:
Another cause for concern is the revision deletions carried out yesterday by KrakatoaKatie. In a surprising move she has removed all the IP numbers - she has never done this before except one occasion when her log entry was Self-disclosure by apparent minor. However, she seems to have slipped up. A glance at the diff for 11:34, 17 January 2020 reveals that the sequence of edits ending at 10:45 was performed by 82.69.5.58, which geolocates to Oxford. Although clicking on the first diff brings up the message "one or both revisions has been removed from the public archives" (as opposed to "one or both revisions has been suppressed") the contribution record for this IP shows no edits since 17 June 2019, which means they were SUPPRESSED. Again, the edit of 11:36, 17 January is by 78.145.24.223, which geolocates to Hackney, London E2. Again, it has no edits recorded, which means they have been SUPPRESSED, notwithstanding the statement that they haven't.
Following up on this, we see that the time interval between the last edit from Oxford and the first edit from London is 49 minutes. Even an express train takes longer than that to travel between the two centres, but in her deletion log Katie claims both edits were made by the same person! The name she gives is "VXFC". There is indeed an editor registered under that name, but no contributions are recorded - hardly an indicator of "Long-term abuse", as entered by Katie in her log. "VXFC" is marked as a sockpuppet of "Flow234". Another sockpuppet of Flow234 is "Long term abuse". This account has one edit, linking "Honda Fit" and "Honda HR-V" to "Economy car". The information is still in the article, so irrespective of the editor's opinion of himself Katie's allegation is unfounded.
The evidence has conveniently been suppressed by the invisible man, so the Community is not in a position to audit Katie's claim, but there is one powerful indicator that it is false. The first of the edits which she hid from Community scrutiny was made at 10:06 on Wednesday, 15 January. Is it really feasible that an edit could hang around for 54 hours if it was "purely disruptive material" as Katie claims?
Even worse is that the original reversions were made by senior administrators and a bureaucrat (Xeno) who saw nothing in the content requiring revision deletion. It's not for Katie to come around 54 hours later and hide evidence in an Arbitration case favourable to a party here who faces de-sysop if the case against him @RHaworth: is proved. - 89.240.119.11 - 15:58, 18 January 2020
Adverting to Xeno's apparent glorification of genocide, noted by 92.10.235.150, those able to (sorry for the late notice) may wish to attend
Never Again! Holocaust Memorial Day Public Meeting and film
The draft for Symply Tacha was created again in February 5. Can you check whether this is the same as the previous one and if so, should it be CSD G4? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
possible adoption
hi. I would be interested in being adopted by you, under the adopt-a-user program. could you please let me know how to set that up? I really appreciate any help. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
how are things?
I noticed your talk page seems to have gone quiet? hope things are going well. --Sm8900 (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replace {{cquote}} with the code from {{cquote/sandbox1}}, with results that can be seen at Template:Cquote/testcases1. This would have the effect of converting {{cquote}} into {{quote}} in all mainspace uses, all at once. Make similar changes in {{rquote}}.
Since you're the RfC initiator, advocated for that change, and have the chops, I'd suggest you make the required changes. (If for whatever reason you can't or don't want to, fine, just let me know so I can do it myself.) Thanks for the RfC... for my part, its a win when the community clearly expresses a choice and the RfC is closed properly and the change is implemented. Herostratus (talk) 06:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some bubble tea for you!
I got rather busy at work and in offline life, having recently moved to a different house. I am well, staying at home, and not ill with the virus. Thanks, Usedtobecool. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - it's nice to see your contributions at the Teahouse again. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! K123455 (talk) 02:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!
I greatly appreciate your help deleting the article that I created by mistake today. I am sorry for this error. It was meant for a project page and I made a typo. Kind regards, JenOttawa (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DESiegel. Thanks for the correction and I apologize for the material I added which was not recommended. I am relatively new here, however, I desire to learn how to become a good Editor in Wikipedia. Would you please be my Mentor? Thank you. Habelgmsa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Habelgmsa (talk • contribs) 19:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Revdel
Hi, can you revdel this edit which includes an individual's full name, city and postal code? Thanks, Hillelfrei talk 19:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up on your comments re. Draft on Scantrust
Hi DESiegel, Thanks again for your thorough comments and encouraging words in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EditPage/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Can_someone_help_me_assess_whether_the_sources_do_establish_notability_of_my_draft_article? , regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EditPage/Draft:Scantrust. I have now finished editing the draft while taking into account your feedback. Some quick comments regarding your feedback: on ref 1, I made a mistake and was actually section 10.3.2, and yes there is no page numbering but it is the entire section ; ref 1,2,5,6: I added a quote. Regarding the marketing tone, I must say that I struggled with how to lower it, since the 1st paragraph is mostly paraphrasing the elements found in the sources, which I understand is the recommended approach. But certainly, another editor would help here.
In this draft, I added a few sources to improve notability assessment. May I ask for your opinion on whether these are useful to address the comment made by the reviewer? Some comments on the added sources:
In consideration of your comment “A professional review of thither products would be particularly helpful”, I added ref 2 (Scantrust Case Study) and ref 9 (Nexans..). Are these sources helpful?
Ref 4 (Chain business insight) and Ref 6 (Supply chain dive) seem, in my opinion, to qualify as secondary sources. In the two cases the journalists have analyzed Scantrust in the context of its impact on supply chains
Ref 8 (rts.ch) is a television documentary which was aired on Swiss National TV, on the topic of counterfeiting. The topic is covered from different sides and Scantrust technology is featured. There is an interview, which I understand is a primary source. However there is also the commentary of the journalist, as well as a printer who comments on how the technology can be used. I am not sure if these can qualify as secondary sources, and how a link to a TV documentary is perceived on Wikipedia?
Ref 10 (phys.org): Even though there is a quote, the article provides commentary and does not appear to be from the viewpoint of the company
Ref 13 quotes the company’s CEO but also provides commentary and analysis. It seems to me as being balanced in that it talks also about the security risks with the technology
Ref 14: some quotes but some commentary as well
There are a number of other sources that are newspaper article for which a company representative has been interviewed, but I'd say that there is also commentary from the journalist. I am not sure if these could count, in part, as secondary source? In any case, I grouped them in the History section, to support facts about the company rather than to establish notability.
Considering the comments I received on the initial draft, do you think it would be ok to now resubmit the article?
By the way, I thought it made more sense to post this message on your talk page, do let me know if it would be more appropriate to post this message in the Teahouse.
Thanks again for your help! Factfox (talk) 14:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Factfox Thank you for your continued work on this draft, and for notifying me about it. Let me respond to the items you mentioned above.
The problem with ref 2 (Scantrust Case Study) and ref 9 (Nexans..) is that neither is independent.
Hyperledger. supplies technology that Scantrust is using, and reviews ScanTrust largely in terms of how its tech is used. That means it is essentially writing about itself and its own work, and has an inherent bias to show how wonderful its work is.
Nexans uses the Scantrust tech to identify its products, and makes the use of that tech a selling point. It therefore has an inherent interest in depicting that tech in as positive a light as it can.
A review by a truly independent source would be much more valuable than either of these. Indeed had these two sources been by fully independent organizations, I think that would have fully established notability. In general any comment by a party with a business relationship with ScanTrust will not count as fully independent.
Ref 4 (Chain business insight) and Ref 6 (Supply chain dive) look like good independent and reliable sources, and go a long way to establishing notability.
For Ref 8 (rts.ch), please use {{Cite AV media}} instead of {{cite web}} to cite published TV or video (or audio) recoierdings. The time withing the presentation serves to indicate the exact place where the relevant information may be found, much as the page number does in a printed source. TV documentaries are held to the same standards as newspapers or magazines or online news sites: they must be independent and have fact-checking and editorial control so that they are reliable. Such sources are perfectly acceptable.
Ref 10 (phys.org) The mere presence of a quote does not make this an interview and therefore not independent. In a classic interview, all the meaningful content comes from the subject, and is therefore the subject talking about him- or herself. That is not independent. An article with one or a few quotes but significant independent reporting is perfectly acceptable. The exact line between the two is a judgement call.
Ref 13 VentureBeat strikes me as perhaps being on the wrong side of that line. It has a number of quoted from the CEO; ,and describes the CEO's thinking and purpose in a way that could only come from him directly or indirectly. It makes a number of statements without giving any sources or describing any investigation or review process, and they are of a kind likely to be found in a press release from ScanTrust. If this is, as I suspect, a mere rehashing of a PR combined with an interview, it is not independent and does not help with notability. However, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 105#VentureBeat and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 91#Venturebeat.com, aumag.org, uscops.com, and positivelyaware.com both found VB to be reliable, and VentureBeat has some positive things to say about VB. I would leave it in but not depend on it overmuch. But keep those links handy in case it is later challenged at an AfD.
Ref 14 Ledger Insights also includes a lot of quotes from the CEO or the company, and a lot of info that seems to be derived from compoany statements although not directly quoted. But it also seems to have a fair amount of independent reporting. I would probably count this as half a source for notability purposes
And now some formatting issues.
Please give article titles in Title Case (Inital caps except for minor words such as "of" Do not use ALL caps even if the source does. See Help:Citation Style 1#Titles and chapters which says: Use title case unless the cited source covers a scientific, legal or other technical topic and sentence case is the predominant style in journals on that topic. Use either title case or sentence case consistently throughout the article. Do not omit a leading "The" from the title. Subtitles are typically separated from titles with ": " though " – " is also used. As with trademarks, Wikipedia does not attempt to emulate any stylistic flourishes used by the cited source's publisher, such as ALL-CAPS, all-lower-case, Small Caps, etc.; use either standard title case or sentence case consistently. This means a correction of Ref 4.
If a source is paginated, as many PDFs are, give the exact page number or numbers where the info being cited is to be found, please.
Please give a publication date with |date= or at least a year with |year= whenever these are known for a given source. Mostly you already do this.
If the source is not well known, consider listing the publisher with |publisher=. If the name of the publisher is essentially the same as the name of the publication, this adds nothing, so don't bother.
If a source is not in English, please consider using |trans-title= to give a translated (English) version of the title.
Do not give the name of the company publishing a source as the author, as you did in Ref 28. Instead use |publisher=.
Please refer to Wikipedia articles and pages with a wiki-link using double-square brackets, not a URL.
Overall, this looks significantly improved to me. After you make the formatting corrections above, I would re-submit this. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again DESiegel, thank you very much again for your guidance! I followed on all your instructions and just submitted the article. This has been an incredibly instructive experience. I am very grateful that you took the time to look through the reference, to offer me specific feedback. I suspected as much for the Nexans/Hyperledger references, and your confirmation confirmed my hypothesis on how such references are treated (I kept them nevertheless). I will let you know the outcome. Have a great day, Factfox (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DESiegel, I just want to let you know that the article has been accepted. Thanks again for your help! I will continue contributing to Wikipedia, there is a number of new articles that I would like to create. Factfox (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Noshing with Nina Show
DESiegel where is the text that was written for the article on "The Noshing with Nina Show" that you deleted? Where can I find it? Nina07011960 (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nina07011960 The text of deleted items is normally visible only to administrators. That is what "deleted" means here. If the creator of a page asks for a copy of the text, it may be provided, usually by email, but is not always. Copyright violations are never provided, nor are attack or defamation pages. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DESCan you send me the email? Nina07011960 (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DES I didn't receive it. Which address did you send it to? Nina07011960 (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nina07011960 I sent it to whatever email address you registered with Wikipedia, via the "email this user" function, which is the only way i send such texts. I do not know and have no way to know what address that might be. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm AaqibAnjum. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Vicky Manhas, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Marriage info
I’m having trouble knowing if I have reached 331dot (?) or not. I want to thank him for helping restore my husband’s wiki page. We are looking for proof of marriage but we did not announce it public ally. Would a marriage certificate work? Where would I send it? I find wading through all this confusing, my tech knowledge is no where near adequate. I admire you for yours. K123455 K123455 (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, K123455. As it happens, I write software for a living, and have for many years, so I really ought to have some knowledge of tech. Like anything else, it can be learned if one takes the time, but some find it easier than others.
No a marriage certificate woul;d not be of any use, so do not bother to try to send it anywhere. Only published sources can be accepted by Wikipedia. However, if your husband has, or creates, a personal web page or site (they are not hard to do in a basic form, nor expensive), and mentions his marriage(s) on that, that would be a published source which couold be cited here. It wouldn't do for anything controversial or extraordinary, but for a routine fact such as a marriage or place of birth, it would be just fine.
I am pinging the editor 331dot, so that s/he knows of your thanks. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice
Hi DESiegel, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.
Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.
To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!
hello there!. I see that you pinged me in the treehouse because of a user complaining about my edit revert. do you want me to talk to the user or should I wait tell the user reaches me in the articles talk page. sorry I am just confused because I never had a user disagreeing with my edit revert in the treehouse. many thanks Trains2050 (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Trains2050, the TEAhouse is supposed to be a relatively friendly place for new editors to ask questions about editing. We often get people there asking when an edit was reverted, or a page tagged for deletion, or a draft declined. I pinged you because I wanted you to know that the user had raised the issue, and be able to read the advice given to the user. (BTW, I think your revert was perfectly proper.) If you want to, you could 1) join the Teahouse discussion; 2) open a thread on the user's talk page; 3) open a thread on the article talk page and ping the user; or 4) wait for the user to open a thread on the article talk page. Since the user may not understand how to ping you, you can't count on an automated notification unless you have the page watched. If it were me, i would probably incline to 3 unless I was too busy, but any of those would be fine, you need not reach out, but it might be helpful form a new user to be shown how a proper article talk page discussion works. IIRC Wallace at least flirted with socialism, but was not a "Fringe" politician for the time, but it is an area of history I know little about. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In some ways it might have been better to call the forum the treehouse, but the idea was to suggest a calm and peaceful sort of place, but a serious one, i understand. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Fengqi You
Hi, DES! Please see my edit summary here: the person has a named professorship in the USA, which – rightly or wrongly – means that he is notable by our standards. His Scholar citations and h-index also suggest that he is notable. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Justlettersandnumbers. Yes that does indicate notability, but the draft doesn't currently say that. Perhaps it was removed as part of the copyvio text. By the way, do you have any experience with dealing with an AfC "Rejected" tag on a draft about a probably notable person, such as Fengqi You is. The copyvios justified the rejection perhaps, but now that they have been removed and revdel'd this shouold not, IMO be marked as rejected. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen it before, and I think it's probably a mistake – my perception is that the "Reject" button is for topics that shouldn't have a page here, and not for fixable problems in the existing version. I started a discussion here, but it hasn't yet borne any fruit. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Striking talk page comments
I'm don't think that what you wrote here is accurate. While modifying an editor's post is not allowed, I don't think there's anything in our policies against striking sock comments from one's own talk page.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 02:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further, this is covered at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments "Comments made by a sock with no replies may simply be removed with an appropriate edit summary. If comments are part of an active discussion, they should be struck instead of removed, along with a short explanation following the stricken text or at the bottom of the thread.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 02:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Ghasidas
There have been no new responses on Talk:Ghasidas for 21 days. I think it's time to assess the consensus, close the discussion. It requires a technical page move and a history merge. TryKid[dubious – discuss] 17:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CallMeKevin
Hi, I saw you A7'd CallMeKevin(Youtuber) a few days ago. I just wanted to let you know that there's a duplicate page at CallMeKevin(YouTuber), which should be A7'd as well. It's been BLPPRODded, but I feel that we shouldn't let it stick around for much longer, since it is clearly not notable and there are major BLP issues with some of the material. Spicy (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mr DEsiegel
I am sad that some editors have chosen to take as personal everything on wikipedia, thereby abusing their authority and tools. They have no respect for the community and pioneers, they bite newcomers using good faith as a disguise. The page you approved Tolu' A Akinyemi has been nominated for speedy deletion by an editor who clearly has a COI with the other nominator whom you have previously cautioned. Sir it is sad. I am sad. I'm being intimidated.Olatunde Brain (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Olatunde Brain, You don't seem very intimidated. Nor does my AfC approval make the Tolu' A Akinyemi article forever immune to deletion, even to speedy deletion. It was deleted by consensus at an AfD, and that consensus was upheld at a Deletion review, although with significant dissent. Changes were made to address the issues raised at the AfD, but the charges were not as large as they most often are when a deleted article is successfully recreated. Editors, such as Versace1608 might well believe in good faith that the article does not belong on Wikipedia without there being anything personal about the matter.
I believe that notability is sufficiently established, or I would not have approved the article at AfC, but I mam only one editor, and have no special power over the views of other editors.
Hobit has removed the speedy deletion tag from the article. If you (or Brain7days needs to discuss the status of the article again, please do so on the merits of the article, not by challenging the motives of those who you disagree with. That is a very bad habit, and often puts off legitimate experienced editors who might otherwise have agreed with you. Please remember this in future. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Noted Thank you.Olatunde Brain (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Schützenverein Lohne
Greetings DESiegel,
i write to you cause you are listed as co-op mentor. I write mostly in the german wiki and only a little bit in the english one. I am planing to translate the article Schützenverein Lohne. My question is: will these articel pass the notability test (german Relevanztest) or will it be deleted. (Maby you can recommend a german speaking writer in the en-wiki for easyer communication). Thanks in advance --Tronje07 (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Assistance, Please
Hey DES thank you for your help with Draft:Kyle_McMahon
I found a pretty in-depth piece on him from May that is part written research and part interview. I'd like to include it in the draft, but I don't want to mess up any of the editors work. I put it in the talk page of Draft:Kyle_McMahon
Any assistance would be amazing. Thank you so much.
FrankNSteinJr (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, FrankNSteinJr. Don't worry too much about "messing things up" it is always easy to put things back they way they were at any point that a draft was saved -- the change history is retained that gives full details of every change. So if you think the source might help.y adding it to the draft. A word of warning, however. many interviews are just the reporter asking short questions and the subject giving long answers. Nothing wrong with that, but pretty much all the significant detail is in the subject's words, so such a source is not co9nsidered independent and does not count toward's notability. Pn the o0thre hand, if the reporter adds significant analysis or comment, so that much of the ninfo is in the reporter's words, thar is different. That kind of source may count towards notability DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK excellent. I will just use the reporters analysis. Thank you so much!
FrankNSteinJr (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shadowblade08 et al
Hello! I'm reticent to start an SPI on a bunch of kids (Shadowblade, Danihart, Hiumyi), but I have the sense that these accounts are one and the same and are just here to troll us. I don't think it could be any clearer that the current one in question is not supposed to edit.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have just blocked the 2nd shadowblade account, ThatMontrealIP. I don't think Hiumyi is the same person, just on style, although they may know each other on social sites. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And no, I am not here to troll.
No, I do not shodowblade at all on social media sites.
Wow, you was serious,
and (reported him or) blocked him. I didn't know you are not supposed to get on Wikipediaat all, if you get blocked. That actually good info.
Thank you, the person who helps and learns,
Yes, Hamuyi I was very serious. I don't block all that much -- only some 287 blocks in more than 10 years -- but I do not joke about it, nor do most admins in my experience. Block evasion is simply not OK. I gave more warnings than normal.
Ans while we are talking, please remember to welcome Teahyouse users when yoiu answer a question, and please read and observe WP:BITE. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, DES. You are aware that the blocked User:Shadowblade08 made a new account 12 hours ago: User:Shadowblade08.2, right? From his Talk page, he now seems to expect that all will be forgiven if he promises not to be disruptive.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am aware, Quisqualis. I was in the course of blocking that account when anothe admin did so fist. I ahve extended the block o the original Shadowblade08 account as well, as is common in cases of block evasion. Unblock requests will be addressed on the user's talk page. Socks (alternate accounts cresated to evade a block) are rarely unblocked. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 05:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Frog King, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adam Davies (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The constructive help you gave on my draft
I really appreciate you taking the time to look at the notability and citations I had used for the draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EditPage/Draft_talk:Ruan_Galdino
I understand now that some of these articles are not so independent. Some of the articles that do mention Galdino are only one sentence statements. I now understand these two issues and will be more aware of them as I continue my writings, Thank you.
My questions before I edit the draft is as follows
1.) The Mail and Guardian article I had used
https://mg.co.za/article/2018-09-28-00-slice-of-life-im-a-neguinho-who-is-really-good/
You had said it was written by Galdino himself which in hindsight I see and agree with you.
Hypothetically, what would have needed to be different with the article in order for it to have been a valid cite? Imagining for a moment that the information within the article was roughly the same as when written by the Galdino and in the hypothetical scenario where the article could be deemed valid? Who would have needed to be the speaker in that articles for it t have been deemed credible?
I have noticed that other professional dancers have used similar "about Us pages" when citing in Wikipedia
examples. To mention a few :
"Vadim Muntagirov". Royal Opera House used in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EditPage/Vadim_Muntagirov
"Gonzalo Garcia". New York City Ballet used in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EditPage/Gonzalo_Garcia_(dancer)
"Levin Award" used https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EditPage/Carla_K%C3%B6rbes
These examples show the information found on sites similar to the Joburg Ballet
There are however many others that do the same. ( I hope i have linked these articles correctly, if not forgive me)
I would like to clarify the question as to why the about of Joburg Ballet is not independent and how these other articles are using similar non-independent pages are seen as possibly independent? I have possibly overlooked something in this regard but thought it wise to clarify for my own understanding. Thank you
I hope this message finds you well. Thank you again for your helpful and constructive criticisms.DanceEnthusiast (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DanceEnthusiast. Non-independent and WP:PRIMARY and WP:ABOUTSELF sources may be and often are used to verify specific facts, and I am not saying that the two source you mention above must be removed from the draft. What I am saying is that these sources do not help to demonstrate notability. Several independent sources must be found that include significant coverage to establish that there should be an article at all. Once these are in place, other sources may be used to verify particular facts. See WP:NBIO and WP:NACTOR. Is the distinction clearer now? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the distinction now thank you. My last question would be relating to the Repertoire section in the draft of Galdino if I could ask you to just quickly look at the cites I used and the information that I am relaying.
If I had more significant coverage in terms of articles - Is it okay to still cite the productions a person has been in even if the article mentions briefly the role within the production? This relating to major works a person has done?
Thank you againDanceEnthusiast (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DanceEnthusiast, these are very good questions, thank you. It is definitely OK to list in an article significant performances that a dancer has been part of, just as it is ok to list exhibitions that an artist has been featured in. Such performances may be cited to a page from the dance troupe or ballet company, sucvh and an "about" page. However, if there are independent reviews that discuss the dancer individually, those are of greater value and help to establish notability as well as supporting the specific statements. In fact, independent critical reviews can be an excellent way to support articles about any sort of creative person. The dance company would normally be a reliable source, even though it is not independent. (A;; cited sources should be reliable.) Oh I might call such a section "Selected performances": rather than "Repertoire", but that is a style issue. When three is a source saying that he played a specific, named role, that could be included.
As to your earlier question about the Mail and Guardian article, if similar words had been written by an independent reporter or article author and published by a reliable source, they would have had m,ore value as showing what others think of Mr. Galdino, not just what he thinks of himself. Sucxh an articel would contribute significantly to notability, as well as being a source for specific statements. As it is, the citation should make it celar that the article was written by Galdino himself. I have edited the draft to add this info to the citation.
I hope, all tjhis is helpful. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! I am grateful for the valuable inputs that you have made. I Have edited the Galdino draft. I have removed a number of citations along with any statements using those citations. At current the article is at a final stage. I have cleaned it up as per some of the thoughts and understanding that you had made me aware of. Does the article in its new form hold any value? Or does it still need more extensive articles about the subject? There are I believe there are 3 some citations in the draft that do hold notability. 1.) Kyle Deutsch releases brand new single, Bring Back The Love". 947.co.za 2.) "End Of Everything". Papmagazine. Retrieved 2020-06-21 3.) Brasil-África - Ser negro ajudou brasileiro a estrelar balé na África do Sul". RFI (in Portuguese). 2016-09-18. Retrieved 2020-06-21 . At this point there is very little more that I can do to Ruan Galdino draft. Let me know if thhe draft is enough to publish in its current state. I wish not to inconvenience you as I have already taken up some of your time in my questioning and I have done my best to be concise in discuissing this article. (I am still new and I am sure that the next draft will be of a higher standard much earlier on in its creation phase that what The Ruan Galdino draft has been. I have learnt much from these discussions with you and will apply these techniques in the future. I wish in the future to have more talks regarding other drafts I have planned and if you ever need my help you can find me on my talk page. DanceEnthusiast (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, DanceEnthusiast. I am afraid I don't think so. Let me tell you why:
The significant evaluation of Galdino in the 947.co.za item is a quote from Kyle Deutsch. Now Deutsch is the creator of the work in which Galdino appeared, and so Deutsch's comments are not independent. Deutsch has an interest in praising those who he selected to work with him, because in doing so he is praising hsi own work and his own judgement in selecting them. If an independent reviewer said much the same things about Galdino's performance that would count much more for notability.
"End Of Everything" Unless I have misundewrstood, this is a video of a performance by Galdino. It does establish that he was in that short film. But has anyone ever paid attention to that film? It's mere existence doesn't tell the reader that. An independant reveiw to say nthat this is a significant film, one that others have taken note of, would be needed.
The RFI source is more useful. But much of the significant content is in the form of quotes from Galdino, and that part is no0t independent, it is Galdino talking about himself.
Note that coverage need not be positive to help with notability. An independent review or comment by someone who took Galdino's work to pieces would still be independent comment about him, and count towards notability.
Please do note that even if a source is not independent, it can still be used to cite facts, provided that they are not extraordinary claims or strongly controversial. It is not needed to remove all such citations, merely to add several (usually at least three, but there are exceptions -- a single book largely devoted to a person or topic may be enough) independent sources with significant coverage to demonstrate notability.
If those three are the best sources out there, it may be WP:TOOSOON for an article about Galdino. As his career continues, more written about him that can be used. Note also that sources need not be online. It is easier to find and review online sources, but many of the best sources are not online.
Note also that I am not some sort of final arbiter. This is just mu opinion. You can wait for another editor to do a review, or even move the draft to the main article space yourself. I do not advise the latter -- I think the current draft would be likely to be nominated for deletion and deleted after discussion -- but one can never be sure.
The lesson here is to find the key sources first and not spend effort writing a draft until a basic minimum of sources are already in hand that should establish notability. Pretty much no one really understands that on his or her first attempt at a Wikipedia article. But one learns it. I hope this advice has been somewhat helpful. Feel free to ask me any further questions, about this draft or any other topic on Wikipedia. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I am actually so amazed at the time you took to help evaluate and discuss this draft of Galdino. I will perhaps come back to this draft if Galdino grown in notablility(more articles,book source, etc).. Thank you for looking through the 3 sources I had supplied and helping me understand them. I understand not to take you as a "final arbiter' and that these sources I have used are not necessarily incorrect. The issue being that there are not even 3 credible citations in the draft to begin with that could stand as "pillars to the draft". I value the criticism you have given. This being my first attempt at an article I was sure to stumble along the way. I would like to keep in contact with you. I have ideas and would like to discuss future drafts, definitely! I will leave the draft as it is in its current form. I see it becomes deleted after 6 months if no activity made I believe so I shall keep close watch on this draft but will lay it to rest. I would like to move on from this experience and begin with a new draft/project.
You mention moving the draft to article space(though ill advised) as an option. Does this mean that drafts do not have to go through submission process to become articles? .The draft would have to be of high quality to trust that it would not be deleted so easily I take it?
The other question I have is how to deal with interview information? I see that GAldino has spoken about himself which is not an independent source, however how do I deal with an interview as source material? an example is this article relating to a different person call Silvia. https://cupofjo.com/2019/02/ingrid-silva-beauty-uniform/ How does one treat Q&A as a source?
I have no further questions relating to the Galdino Draft or any other for the time being. I would like to discuss more once I show you a new draft. Better this time
Thank youDanceEnthusiast (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to be of help, DanceEnthusiast, and I would be happy to look at any new drafts you might be working on, ore to give any advice and assistance I can. I will not promise always to respond promptly, however. To answer your questions above:
Any autoconfirmed user (which you are) may move any draft to the main article space at any time, provided that the moving user believes in good faith that doing so will benefit the encyclopedia and that the draft is suitable as an article. This is the same good faith re4quirement as is imposed on any edit. I myself start all my knew articles as drafts and move them when I think they are ready, because I cannot create a valid article in a single edit. However I do not submit them for review. However, such moves are logged and are often reviewed by the New Page Patrol and may be nominated for deletion after such a review.
Interviews require some judgement. Some editors prefer to avoid them totally. An interview can be used for the same sort of things that a person's own web site can be used for -- uncontroversial factual statements. For example: a person's birth place, birth year, parents' names, the school(s) that person attended, and other basic biographical information. They can also be sources of quotes from the subject. (for example Jones said in an interview with Hot Spot: "I have always taken as much time as needed to get the work right." in an article about Jones.) In those cases where the interviewer/reporter makes significant comment, perhaps in an intro or conclusion to the interview, that comment can be treated as a separate independent article.
Feel free to put a message here (probably in a new section) or to ping me to some other page at any time. (Without the ping or a {{talkback}} I may well never see the message. I am automatically notified of any edit to this page.) DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again. I will create a new section if(when) we have later discussions. Or I shall use the other methods you have outlined to contact you. And I understand you might not answer immediately but I am happy knowing that you are there and that a reply would happen even if it takes a while.
All the best wishes. Until next time,thank youDanceEnthusiast (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This World We Live In page
Hi DES, thanks for restoring the page for This World We Live In (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EditPage/Draft:This_World_We_Live_In). I've written a synopsis and added some biographic detail and a couple of reviews. Is that enough to publish the page rather than have it be a draft? Thanks - Madeleine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.198.233 (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
Hi! Thank you for your consideration in unblocking my account! It's nice that by making some mistakes you don't necessarily ruin your Wikipedia future, but you can move forward! I promise to make the unblock worth it with my edits :) Bachdze (talk) 07:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MrSuckyHead2006
user:MrSuckyHead2006 is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Barkeep49 has already dealt with this, CLCStudent, but thank you for the notification. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Haikyu (season 1)
Can you at least restore the page without the summaries or show me the history link from 17:54, 28 June 2020 so I can do it because this isn't right for other people. SpectresWrath (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will look into whether I can fairly easily restore a version with no copyright infringements, later today i hope. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Any luck? SpectresWrath (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you change the revision back to visible so I can restore the page again without the summaries. SpectresWrath (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, SpectresWrath. I have restored Haikyu!! (season 1) and edited out only those summaries which the copyright check tool reported as including significant copied text. Where a given summery included significant copied test, I mostly delted the whole ,thing and did not try to sonstruct a paraphrase. In sme cases I left in sentences that appear OK from a copyright perspectivce. I then used revision deletion to remove all those revisions that i9ncluded any of the copyright infringing text, while leaving those that did not visible. I saw that you had restarted the article. Your new versions are in the history, but the trimmed older version is now the current version.
The process took me a bit over an hour. You or someone will want to re-write those episode descriptions which I had to remove so that they are accurate, but not infringing.
Please note that while I was doing this, TAnthony made an edit to chan ge the color of the line elements in the display. The edit summary was Subsitute color(s) to make infobox and/or episode table color contrast compliant with WP:COLOR, I express no view on the merits of that edit, if you don't like it please discuss with TAnthony on Talk:Haikyu!! (season 1).
Again, sorry for the delay. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WikiLoop Battlefield new name vote
Dear DESiegel,
Thank you for your interest and contributions to WikiLoop Battlefield.
We are holding a voting for proposed new name. We would like to invite you to this voting. The voting
is held at m:WikiProject_WikiLoop/New_name_vote and ends on July 13th 00:00 UTC.
Hi and thanks for the review. Yes there is another source! I will include it and flesh out the article tomorrow with more information and maybe an infobox. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was just a comment, Julia Domna Ba'al not a full review. Without access to the source, I couldn't really do a proper review -- but no doubt someone will be able to. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I applied for undeletion of Dave Taranto as I received a message from CptViraj stating that Dave Taranto has been nominated for deletion. When I went to sandbox the the title was gone. I presumed that I cannot, then, start the article on Dave Taranto. The title or subject was rejected, I asked editors for assistance. They were very, very helpful. They've encouraged me to gather material and learn the basics of article writing. I'm new. I don't know where this all sits. I'm unsure if I can re-start the beginnings of the article. I presume I can, but I wanted to know for certain.
Hi, You have given me excellent and detailed answers to my questions which I am following up. Some of the revision made by other editors are incorrect e.g links and punctation, english spelling (which I believe Wiki rules should respect) etc. On the plus side some editors have changed the tone of the article and I can now see the error of my text to meet the WK:MOS requirements.
After I have done some more research and I will be making a few revisions:- If you could maintain your watch it would be appreciated.
I will add an info box
A photo of Warnahm Court has also been moved from a reference link into the main page. This in my opinion is an overuse of pictures in the article. I shall change it back especially as I'm adding the info box.
I will correct the error changes. My history will show why the changes have been made.
There's a requiremnt for cites to be added. If I can't find examples I will change the text to avoid any necessity.
Your input is much appreciated. ThanksWindswept (talk) 08:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Barkercoder I am glad to have been of assistance
About the picture of Warnahm Court. Wikimeia commons is not considered to be a suitable reference source, so the image should either be included in the article, or omitted completely, not simply linked.
If an inmfobox is to be used, I would suggest {{infobox scientist}}. Be careful to read and follow the instructions in the documentation page. Note that only items supported by that infobax can be included. Infoboxes do not support general free-form text. And of course, an infobox is not required, although many editors and readers like them.
You are quite correct that WP:ENGVAR indicates that edits to change from British to US versions of English, or the reverse, are disapproved except to achieve consistency within an article, unless there is discussion and consensus for a change. Since Barker lived in the UK, I would rather expect British English to be used, but change of the established style in the article for personal preference is not OK.
Please do feel free to ask any additional questions, or ask for any assistance here or at the Teahouse or Help Desk. I hope you will continue to edit other articles after this one. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: Nibulismul
Hello, you rejected my apply to get my text refunded, so I was wondering if you could please send that to my email. I don't know how this works but please send it to me through my mail.
Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabitzu200 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sent, Gabitzu200. Please note that articles and drafts here on en.Wikipedia should be in English, and should cite appropriate reliable sources. Please sign comments on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). The wiki software converts this into your signature and a timestamp. Thank you. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please
Do not feed the trolls. I investigated the IPs posts and the were clearly WP:NOTHERE. Removal of the posts was an attempt to avoid the Streisand effect and you defeated that purpose. MarnetteD|Talk 01:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MarnetteD I have responded on the Teahouyse talk page just now, and pinged you. I will "feed the trolls" whenever I please, and thee mere essayWP:DENY (which i disapprove of and always have) is not a valid reason for deleting a question from the Teahosue. I had read the Ip's deleted question before I ever reverted. I would revert again in such a case, and I will revert the next time someone deletes a Teahoue question on such grounds. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will proudly revert feeding of the trolls and will look forward to the AN/I that follows. MarnetteD|Talk 02:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't normally welcome an ANI dispute, MarnetteD, but in this sort of case I will be quite willing to enter into one, should the circumstance arise in future. Do be careful to avoid violating WP:TPO which is a guideline, unlike DENY, and is directly based on policy. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(courtesy ping @MarnetteD:) Perhaps I can be helpful here. Reverting the question was appropriate in this instance because the underlying post to which it drew attention was a BLP violation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, Newyorkbrad. The BLP violation had already been deleted and revdele'd, so no teahouse post could possibly draw any attention to it of any meaningful sort. Check the log timestamps. If I had been reverting that post, that would have ben a very different thing. I wasn't, haven't and wont. Furthermore, having made my case at the Teahouse talk, if someone chooses to delete the post again, i won't revert further, although I might go to ANI. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it again myself (before your reply above). I think it would be unfortunate for you to further publicize this situation at ANI, though I can't stop you if you choose to do that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, Newyorkbrad I'll let it drop this time, although I urge you to reconsider and restore the question and its answers. How would you feel about restoring the answers without the question?
But please understand that I would probably restore any simialrly deleted question in future, depending on the exact circumstances. You might want to look at the Teahouse talk page comments, and the archived comments from 2018 That i linked in that thread. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "depending on the exact circumstances" is the most relevant part of your response. I've re-read the threads you cite and they contain some support for the idea that the Teahouse might entertain a question from someone who is violating the sockpuppetry policy or some other policy. Within reasonable limits, that makes some sense, as it provides an opportunity to explain the policy and perhaps lead the editor to abide by it. In that sense I agree with you that we might be more lenient in the Teahouse, or on the help desk or other similar pages, than we would be if the same post were made elsewhere.
Violations of the BLP policy raise a different set of issues, through, because they can affect people outside Wikipedia itself. Despite that, if the Teahouse question linked to a potential good-faith edit that inadvertently violated the policy, it would be reasonable to address the question in a way that, without publicizing the problematic edit, guided the editor regarding how to avoid violations in the future.
In this instance the post linked to edits spreading unsourced conspiracy theories that accused a specific living person and organization of mass murder. That sort of edit cannot stand or be publicized on any page within Wikipedia, and there was no reasonable possibility that responding to the question would lead to improved editing in the future. As such, removing the question was supported by fundamental BLP principles and such material, when removed, may not be restored. I hope this clarifies my thinking and, perhaps, the thinking of several others who were involved in this discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad I quite agree that the post promoting the conspiracy theory had to go, and should have been removed via revdel promptly, and had another admin not done so first I would have done so myself.
But the Teahouse quote, while it quite likely was intended to draw attention to that BLP-violating post, did not actually link to it, it merely linked to the article on which it was made. Nor did it repeat the specific allegations -- had it done so, i would have removed it myself. Once the BLP violation had been removed, it was harmless, and making clear to new editors who might be reading the Teahouse that WP:NOTCENSORED does not mean WP:ANYTHINGGOES, that improper and particularly unsourced allegations are subject to removal and a block, seems to me a highly valuable message to convey, and doing so in the context of an actual question based on an actual post seems far more valuable than any theoretical statement or link to WP:BLP. Can you see and appreciate my PoV here? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's helpful in understanding your reaction, yes, and I think I would agree with you in 90+% of cases. This particular posting was an exception because the bizarre accusation that a named person has been complicit in more than 40 murders was so over-the-top. For that reason I didn't think the post could be the basis for a productive discussion, and there remained the concern that someone would ask "so what was so terrible about the original post anyway?", so I still do not agree with you in this particular instance. Hopefully, there won't be any more such posts and our disagreement can remain a theoretical one. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfair rejection of my submission Draft:Kapil Sankhla
Hi, seeking your help to understand why my draft, submitted just 2 hours ago under AfC got rejected citing the reason - the cases do not seem important enough to justify an article. If you go through the content and the independent references, all cases that I have mentioned have made headlines in all the noteworthy tabloids at the time and were high-profile in the country, which itself proves that they were well-known. Had they not been as well-known, would I have found as many independent references? One of the cases - Gopal Goyal Kanda - is also discussed on a Wikipedia page of the same name, although they have discussed the facts and not mentioned the lawyer, something that I intended to add using my references. I feel it is unjustified, but please let me know what you can make of the matter. Thanks in advance, regards, Tycheana (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Advice for newcomers
Hello, You are receiving this message because you are invited to take part at Wikipedia:Advice for newcomers where you can provide advice that will help our newcomers in the future. It is not a discussion forum, just a place where you say what advice would be helpful to our future editors. I would like to get at least 100 editors to take part in this so please feel free to spread the word to other editors as well. I look forward to seeing what you say to newcomers. Interstellarity (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which Indian tabloids are regarded as noteworthy?
Hi, I wanted to seek your opinion on the Indian tabloids that are regarded as noteworthy enough to be used as sources on Wikipedia. When it comes to news reports on the current events of the day, can India Today, Business Standard, Economic Times and Financial Express be regarded as reliable and reputed sources? This is not about interviews or editorials, just news reports. Also Press Trust of India - can it be treated as a reliable source? Thanks in advance, Tycheana (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought that India Today would be, Tycheana, but I have recently encountered some editors in AfD or DRV discussions saying that IT will reprint what are basically press releases. I don't know if this is accurate or not. I would suggest asking at the relibled sources noticeboard. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DESiegel, Barkeep49 directed me to the RSN page on Indian tabloids and many of the names that are counted as reliable feature in my source list - like TOI, The Business Standard, Economic Times and The Indian Express. Yet reviewer DGG is refusing to acknowledge them. I was wondering if I could show User Rosguill's page stating the same to reviewer DGG to justify my sources....??? Many thanks, regards, Tycheana (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can certainly point DGG to Wikipedia:New_page_patrol_source_guide#India and to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, which mentions some of the above, although note that ToI seems considered less reliable than I had thought, Tycheana. But I don't see DGG "refusing to acknowledge" these sources, he is not willing to rush into a review, and as he wrote to you, there is no rush here, and excessive hurry tends to make volunteer editors suspicious. Also, it is generally frowned on to ask the same question of multiple people or in multiple fora unless you note in each that the others are also being asked. This can cause people to waste time duplicating the effort top provide answers, and suggest that you are answer shopping, and will cite the response you like best. I suspect you are just eager to get a response from someone, but please understand that with over 6 million articles and thousands of pending drafts, no one of them can be highly urgent to many people. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DESiegel, not exactly shopping - more like trying to unravel a riddle. If you can just visit my talk page and read what he has written about the sources you would realize why I put out the question in the first place. As to why am posting on multiple for is because here people take time to respond, and maybe patience is not exactly my strongest virtue when it comes to seeking answers. For example, the AfC help desk - today morning was the first time I heard from them, but on a positive note, at least someone responded. Now that I am somewhat familiar, it did come as a revelation the way he spoke about the sources I have used on my talk page. Whatever I put out after that was in reaction to his comments. Anyway, sorry if it offended anyone, wasn't intended to, and many thanks for the guidance, best regards, Tycheana (talk) 05:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[[U: Tycheana}}, one of the reasons I go slowly is so I can put myself at a little Distance, and re-examine the issue from scratch. I know that I make mistakes , so I don't want to give a snap response that might be wrong again ; I want to do things right, and when I make mistakes I want to correct them. In any case what you get will be my opinion--Only the community can give a final answer. DGG ( talk ) 07:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response, DGG.
Tycheana, I have looked at your talk page, and I think i understand your situation. But you do need to realize that many people do "shop" to try to get the answer they want, a bit like a child asking one parent after the other has said no. In particular, some paid editors will do this or any other technique that they think will get their work into the main article space, because that is when they get paid, even if it gets deleted again quickly. So you need to see that doing things which resemble the techniques of paid editors, even if for different reasons, does not dispose volunteers positively. It seems to me that you are trying in good faith to get an article written about a topic you think should be included here, but this is an area where many apparently acceptable sources in fact engage in considerable promotion, so sorting high-quslity sources from others is not easy, particularly for those of us who do not live in India and do not know its cultural context the way those who do live there know it. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RSs and interviews
I want to clear up a misconception that the reliability of a promotional interview depends of where it was published. All newspapers and general and hobbyist magazines I know of publish promotional interviews, and I think they always have done so. The NYT has publsihed them consistently in the various feature sections; the New Yorker has published them even as major stories. A promotional interview is an interview where the subject is permitted to say whatever they please. The reason they are not a RS for notability or indeed for anything at all beyond what the subject wants to give as their personal views, is because they are not independent--the publication simply asks leading questions, and publishes whatever the subject responds. They have exactly the same degree of independence from the subject as what the subject publishes on their blog. Not all interviews are promotional : some are intended to be deliberately hostile, and some are , on rare occasions, intended to be analytic. The way to tell is to not just note what is the title of the source and its general reliability, but to read the actual item. There are fields where such interviews commonly are all the available content except for notes about funding and routine operations ,and if there isn othing better, it may be impossible to write a NPOV WP article, because there is no information independent of the subject. In additional to such promotional interviews, there is other promotional content: the style section of magazines is often almost entirely composed of such items, and the way to distinguish them is whether the publication seems to give any independent source for what it publishes.
Some publications give specific honest specifications about where the material is coming form. a key warning word, for example, is often "contributor", A key stylistic device to be taken as warning is a direct quote. And some publication title are honest: Anthing called Someplace business journal is a vehicle for PR, and almost always nothing more .
this does not mean that such content is worthless in the world. I read such content eagerly about material in my field of interest or relevant to my personal life. They're advertising, and advertising can be informative. I want to know what a chef of a new restaurant thinks it is trying to do; I want to know what a computer manufacturer thinks its noteworthy features are. I read them with full knowledge about where the information is coming from, and I would never rely on anything said there for anything in a WP article, except the person or firm's declared intentions--which may of course sometimes not be their true intentions. There are situations where such material can actually be reliable about the facts of the subject, but they're special cases.
Officially, WP relies upon editorial control as a criterion. Editorial control of newspapers varies, and not a single one of them is perfect. No publication at all is a RS for everything. .There are no shortcuts: one must first read the actual reference, and then anaalyze it critically with a knowedgeof where the likely problems may be. We have in the past naively acted as if sourcing were a mechnical operation. It is not. Remember that the highest level of the PR profession is the ability to gets the client's preferredm material into what the reader is likely to think a high-quality publication. DGG ( talk ) 09:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, DGG For the most part, I agree with what you have posted above, although I would not use the term "Promotional interview" Tto describe the kind of interview where the reporter or interviewer masks short, usually general questions and allows the subject to answer at whatever length s/he chooses. I think such interviews are sometimes promotional, and sometimes rather less so, but in general, they are not independent. Even what might be called a hostile interview is usually not independent. However, it does happen that a publication combines an interview reporting, sometimes in the form of introduction, sometimes in the form of a conclusion, less often interspersed between interview segments. In this case, the non-interview sections of ma piece are, I think, as reliable and independent as other stories in the same publication generally are. Also, I believe some publications fact-check an otherwise wide-open interview, and will either remove answers that don't stand up, or include a comment to that effect in the published piece I am also not quite as ready to agree with your list of Red Flags above, such as the meaning of "Contributor" which I think varies significantly between publications, or the contents of any Someplace Business Journal, which again I think are not all alike. But aside from those points, I agree with the above.
Which makes me wonder why you chose to post it here, on m y user talk page, as a subsection of the section about " Indian tabloids" started by User Tycheana , in which you were mentioned. Since you did not ping Tycheana, I presume you must have intended the above for me. It it your opinion that I in particular have been too ready to accept what you refer to as promotional interviews as reliable and notability-conferring sources? If so, please be specific in where you think i have made such an error, so that I can correct my future actio9ns. Or if not, then why did you post the above here and now?
By the way, it seems to me that the above could well serve as the start of a good Wikipedi9a essay. Would you object if I were to use it in such a way? Yes I know, posting here releases everything under CC-BY-SA, so I don't need to ask. But as a matter of courtesy, I would not take such a step without asking. Further if I did such a thing, i would modify the above some what, and add in some of the tho0ughts from this response. What do you think? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I posted this here as the beginning of a specific reply, and possibly as a start of a general discussion. I intended to copy i over to my talk page, but became too tired to continue. I will adjust it. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i have this in mind for an essay--and most of the longer posts on my talk pages and elsewhere are in some sense essays; I've always meant to rewrite them as such, but I almost never have. Certainly you can use this; perhaps we might even think about a two part essay for the sign post .
as for specifics, I do agree with you that the signs of promotion In newspaper articles and the like are not always as simple as I said--Going into details here would make for a very essay indeed. The main thing I omittedIs that multiple interviews with exactly the same contents usually a sure sign of prepared text That the publisher is just re-printing! DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
and I gave Tycheana the response, "
Now, about the article:
as a general rule, attorney are notable either from being lead attorneys on notable cases, or in having references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements written on them. If you want to base the argument on his cases, try writing articles on them, but I don't think they'll be found notable. As for the refs, most are in the context of the cases only. Ref 1 is straight pr, .You are right that many of the other articles are not PR , but they are about the particular case, not the individual.
Im sorry, but I do not see the basis for an acceptable article. But I do not have the last word, and iif some other reviewer accepts it, I will decide whether to challenge it at AfD. The community gets to decide." DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DESiegel, sorry for having dropped off the radar for the last few days. Two families in the neighborhood tested COVID positive and then everyone else was tested and the surroundings sanitized rigorously. Then there is the pending decision of the residential complex being declared a containment zone, so have been shopping to stock up the essentials.
I went through the discussion above, and have asked reviewer DGG what I can do about the draft going ahead. As far as the interview is concerned, I have used only the content preceding it to ascertain the location and education and absolutely nothing from the interview per say. But if that is also doubtful, then will remove it altogether. Overall, I have asked him if narrowing down the draft and the sources to the 4-5 newspapers that are acknowledged here would help, and am awaiting his guidance on the matter. Thanks & sincere apologies once again, best regards, Tycheana (talk) 07:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked this editor for disruptive editing, included multiple undeclared paid editing, based partially upon off wiki evidence. DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for notifying me, DGG. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Restore my deleted page?
Hello, you just commented on my post in the TeaHouse. Would you be able to restore my "Andy Avalos" page as a draft for further improvements? From there I would revise with improved sources and use Articles for Creation to ensure it is up-to-par before being re-published on Wikipedia. This is the first page I have ever created so I am invested in ensuring it meets the standards of the site. --Ybrik22 (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Ybrik22, restored to Draft:Andy Avalos. Please read referencing for beginners and improve the ref formatting, as well as adding sources to demonstrate notability, if possible. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 05:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mukesh Officials
Greetings. Not going to argue with the CSD-decline on A7 grounds, but I notice that an article on him had been previously deleted under a different title per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mukesh Officials (Singer) and wanted to ask for a G4 check before I sent this back to AfD. Thank you. --Finngall talk 22:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don 't say that this would pass an AfD, or even that I would !vote keep. But the previous AfD was 5 years ago, and G4 is generally not enforced over that kind of timespan (and when it is DRV often overturns it). Beyond that, the 2015 version had no cited sourness beyond the subject's own web presence, this has several. They may not be enough to establish notability, but they are there. So I don't think that G4 applies. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I figured as much on all of the above. I figured A7 wasn't in the cards and was planning on AfDing from the get-go but I edit-conflicted with the speedy tagger so I reverted myself to let the A7 decision play out. Then I went to send it back after your action and caught the link to the old discussion in the Twinkle preview, so I just wanted the double-check before proceeding. Thank you again for your time. --Finngall talk 22:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, Finngall. It is part of what I do here. Note for the future that if you were reasonably sure that A7 did not apply, you could have removed the speedy tag yourself, and gone to AfD. Any editor who is not the creator may remove such a tag if s/he thinks in good faith that the speedy criterion does not apply. This is not something only an admin may do, although deleting the page of course is is. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware that I could have removed the tag, but I decided to let an admin make the call instead. Now sent to AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mukesh Officials. Thanks again, and have a good day. --Finngall talk 22:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright
The more I learn about copyright, the more I realize how much there is to know. I don't think it sunk in until you just mentioned it that the 1976 act eliminated the need to distinguish between published and unpublished. I have a vague recollection of sorting through that issue with the photograph that was taken prior to 1926 I believe but first published some years later, and making a mental note that I had to remember to distinguish the date of creation from the date of publication. It's good to know, if I followed correctly, that post 76 that's not something to worry about.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction still matters, but not in the same way. Prior to the 1976 act there was no federal copyright for unpublished works, although state laws gave a degree of protection. The 1976 act preempted the state laws and extended copyright from the moment of fixation, but the term often depends on whether a work is published or not, and if it is, when and where. a work published in 1924, say, would now be in the public domain. But a work created in 1924 and published in 1934 might well be under copyright, and a work created in 1924 and never published would pretty much certainly be under copyright (if it was copyrightable at all). So the distinction between published and unpublished no longer matters for initial copyright, but does matter for when it expires. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC) @S Philbrick: DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
deletion of Lorenzo Destefano draft
I believe the draft page was deleted in error. The website in question is the biography of the person I am making a page about. It is just a rough template to gather all the facts and will be elaborated upon before it is submitted for review. The author of the biographical reference, Lorenzo Destefano, the person whom the page is about and owns the copyright to the said page marked as a copyrighted work violation, has granted me permission to use said reference as a template for their wiki page. Since previous versions of his wiki drafts have been deleted I had to start from scratch, hence using the biography listed.
Mexicajedi (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, Mexicajedi but I am not going to restore Draft:Lorenzo DeStefano. Wikipedia policy on this is clear, Wikipedia will not host copyright violations, even on a temporary basis. "permission to use on Wikipedia" is not sufficient, the copyright holder must release the content under a free license such as CC-BY-SA, such that anyone in the world my use or modify the content, at any item, for any purpose, including commercial use, without fee or permission, and such that the license grant is permanent. Moreover the copyright holder must either post the license publicly with the content, or else communicate the license directly to Wikipedia by email, as described at Donating copyrighted materiel.
You could start over. If you choose, you could start offline with the copied content, and modify it so that it is no longer a copyright infringement but is instead original in wording before you post a new version to Wikipedia. But even in draftspace, even while being worked on, copyrighted content is not acceptable on Wikipedia except under a free license as described above. See Wikipedia:Copyrights and linked pages for more details.
If you think my deletion was improper you may raise the matter at Deletion review. However I participate in discussions there regularly, and I do not think you will get a different answer. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so if we do the donate copyright materials or I edit the wording so its original I may continue? We can do that. Thank you!
Mexicajedi (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is correct, Mexicajedi. I would advise rewriting in your own words rather than doing the donation. It is quicker, as otherwise the donation email will need to be written, sent, and then processed by a volunteer. Also, copied text is often more than a bit promotional or written in an informal tone that does not suit a Wikipedia article. Remember that an article should not express any opinions or make any judgements except when these are directly attributed to a named person, usually in a quote, and with a citation to support them. Otherwise only strictly factual statements should be included. See WP:NPOV. But either method deals with the copyright issue. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have redone the page and have added citations. It looks like someone went in and fixed some of the dates. My question is what is the next process, it has not been deleted nor made official.
Mexicajedi (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Veer promotions
Hi DES. Since you’re pretty good at sorting this kind of thing out at the Teahouse, perhaps you wouldn’t mind helping this editor out as well. The username is an obvious violation that is going to lead to a soft-block if not changed, but the user page might be a misplaced draft. Also, although I didn’t dig to deeply, there are also some things that look like WP:APPARENTCOI (even possibly WP:UPE) with multiple accounts suddenly appearing and working together to create some new articles (or drafts) without going through AFC. One of the accounts (Nationalkarateteam has already been soft-blocked. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Marchjuly. I fear this is already beyond my abilities. User:Veer promotions has been blocked as a sockpuppet account, CU confirmed, along with several others, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Karateaniket. It did look as if the former content of User:Veer promotions was a misplaced draft (now overeritten by the block notice).It is about Pradhuman Singh Tomar who, taking the the statements in the page as accurate, is probably notable. But it contains only a single cited source, and tyhst does not so much as mention the subject's name, Had this editor still been active, I would have moved it to a userspace draft. But it needs significant work, and if I were to move it to draft space there seems no particular reason to assume that anyone would work on it. I could, I suppose try to get it to minimal mainspace status. Oddly I had advised Karateaniket on a different draft. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the block and was in the process of removing my post but got hit with an edit conflict because you were responding. Not much more to do here, accept you might want to take a look at WT:INDIA#O.P.S Bhadoria and WT:MARTIAL#Karate Association of Darbhanga if you think any of these can possibly be saved. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links, Marchjuly. I will take a look.
Of for future reference, should something like this happen again, please do not remove the post, edit conflict or not. If anyone removes any post from my user talk page, including their own, I revert the removal. Except maybe for an obvious misclick or delf-reversion of vandalism. Said is said. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
I disagree with the G8 on The Devil's Music – Songs of Death and Damnation. I removed the prod after a short investigation, and I think this one needs a proper AfD. Lightburst (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At least I think I removed a prod there, perhaps you can check the history? It may have been a similarly titled article. Lightburst (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Lightburst I deleted that as an A9, no assertion of significance for a musical recording where the artis has no article. In fact there had ben an articl about the band, but it weas deleted by AfD as non-notable recently, The contents were:
The Devil's Music - Songs of Death and Damnation is Danish black metal band Horned Almighty's second full-length studio album.
plus an infobox, a track list, and a list of people involved in making the album. Nothing else, and the only cited source was this. Do you really think there is a significant chance that this is notable? I am confident that if this were sent to AfD it would be deleted unless soemoen found additional sources, although that is always possible. Or I could restore it to draft if you intend to work on it. Do you? It seemed a routine A9 with another editor had tagged, quite possibly in the wake of the AfD on the band. ::::DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok DESiegel. Lol, I may be confused. I have been editing too much. I usually fix up the article before removing a prod so I am likely mistaken. Thanks! Lightburst (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What would you like me to do, Lightburst? The AfD was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horned Almighty, by the way. Your edit had a summery of Removed prod, found much RS on the subject. Article needs to have rs added but is notable but no citations were added. If you have citations you would be ready to add I can restore this, either to mainspace or to draft. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we should let it go. Thanks! Lightburst (talk) 23:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Up to you, Lightburst If there are sources that yoiu think would pass WP:NMUSIC or the GNG, I'll be happy to restore. Speedy deletion is for clear cases, after all, and good sources would mak this much less clear. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Too many other things to edit. So I will move on. Lightburst (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Templates
Is it ok, that I work on templates like these? ฅʕ•̫͡•ʔฅ -- AppleUserWithPermissions (talk) 07:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may certainly create templates and experiment with them, AppleUserWithPermissions. But there might be some problems with using some of the ones you have created. For example, {{No use}} says that the page it is used on will be deleted soon. But it doesn't actually nominate the page for deletion, or put it into any speedy deletion category, as far as I can see, so it does not in fact do what it says it does. Or {{Checked and well}}. We don't generally use tempaltes to indicate thatr an article is in good shape, and cerrtianly no editor ever has to ask prmisison to make changes on an article, even a FA, so thid should not be used on any article. There is a somewhat simialr problem eith {{Please check}}. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand it. But look at the page I created for you. No use below. It puts an deletion on the page. ฅʕ•̫͡•ʔฅ -- AppleUserWithPermissions (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:DESiegel/no use
That is, cause the deletion is <includeonly>ฅʕ•̫͡•ʔฅ -- AppleUserWithPermissions (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your critique of my Wikipedia page on Isola delle Femmine
Hello DES,
I am happy to receive comments and criticisms of my work but much of what you point out escapes me as being a problem. Perhaps you can explain further. I will comment on your points.
You question whether the legend attributed to Pliny the Younger is really the oldest. I give a reference for the legend. Given that this dates back to Emperor Trajan, I thought stating that it appears to be the oldest was a reasonable conclusion. Of the many other absurd legends regarding this name, none that I have read about predate that era.
I did the search of the posted index of Pliny's letters. Should I cite myself?
Please explain the difference be an analytic statement and an encyclopedic statement and why the former is not proper. I have always thought that proper analysis is publishable and of great value.
There are many such impossible or at least improbable legends about the name of this island. Do you think I should cite each and every one? I don't see the value in that. I believe there were at least two, one of them being the most absurd, given on this website as the only possible origin for the island's name before I replaced all of that with what is now shown. I do not believe any reference was given for those.
I find the legend of name evolution from Euphemius to Femmine more interesting than the rest, with the exception of the Arabic word for mouth, because there is documentation that Euphemius existed on Sicily and that there are still items in the area named after him. I thought a conclusion that this made this legend more interesting was obvious. Apparently, I need to more clearly state the obvious.
Regarding the Tonnara and the Arabic word for mouth, I give a reference for the Tonnare on Sicily and also state that some of the structures still remain near the city. I think that proves that part of that legend. You are correct that I do not give a reference to the Arabic word for mouth. I found an English to Arabic translator on the web which can sound out the Arabic words. The sound is clearly as we would pronounce "fim" with a short "i". I shall add a reference to that site.
You are correct that this page now represents considerable research including locating the 12th century parchment and finding the important statement about the "island named Fimi" written in Latin script. The present state of the page contains far more references than its predecessor. I can add a couple more as stated above. If you think I should cite my personal work in the places I noted, I can also do that.
JiminiVecchio (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, JiminiVecchio. I could wish you had responded on the article talk page (Talk:Isola delle Femmine) where I posted my comments, both to keep the conversation in one connected piece, and because discussions about what should or should not go into an article are usually best on the article talk page, so that they stay with the article. But I wiull respond here rather than further fragment the discussion. I may copy it to the article talk page later, or linki from there to here. Several points.
Please read, or re-read, our policy on original research. Wikipedia articles, unlike scholarly articles in journals (or magazine articles) should report what other sources have said, combining information from multiple sources when possible. They should not draw any conclusions or do analysis of any kind beyond what is stated in one or more reliable, sources.
It5 is not your page, in the sense that an academic paper would be your work. It is Wikipedia's article. Please read read WP:OWN if this is not clear to you. I will assume that you were merely using thsi as short for "the article on which i did significant work" but it is a good idea to keep the distinction clear in mind by avoidi8ng such phrases as "my page".
I did not merely question whether the legend of Pliny's letter was the oldest tradition, but the existence of the legend. You gave one citation, to a 39 page document, without specifying a page number, and the word "Pliny" does not appear in that document. Please at least specify a page number. It would help if you provided bibliographic information for this source: Who wrote it , who published it, in what publication if any, and in what year, at least. This would help the reader judge its reliability. Having used google translate on what I think is the relevant page of the document, it says that the name may derive from a latter of Pliny, for which it gives no date beyond 62 AD (which i think is Pliny's date, not the letter's) buty does not say nor even imply that this is the oldest legend. Without a source that says this is the oldest, the Wikipedia article should not say so either.
You write I did the search of the posted index of Pliny's letters. Should I cite myself? No, you should leave out any such search altogether. unless a reliable soure reports the search, it should not be mentioned.
As I said above, any satement that does analysis to reach a conclusion not reached in a cited secondary source is original research and must be omitted. This is what I meant by an "analytic statement". An encyclopedic statement is one that reports or summarizes a statement or statements from a source or sources.
There are many such impossible or at least improbable legends about the name of this island. Do you think I should cite each and every one? Yes, i do, or else leave them otherwise the reader has no way to verify that the legends even exist. In fact I'll go further, on challenge (which you may regard this as begin) any such statement must be cited or removed.
I find the legend of name evolution from Euphemius to Femmine more interesting... But your opinions (ore mine) do not belong in the article. Unless a reliable secondary source has said that one is more interesting than the others, this is undue weight.
On the derivation from the Arabic word for mouth, it is not enough that the sounds are similar. Relying on similarity of sound often leads to blatantly false etymology. There needs to be a reliable source that says that this specific derivation is plausible, or possible.
As for the derivation from "insula Euphemii" you refer to this as a conjecture (pr indeed several conjectures), but you do not say whose. If it is in fact yours, it must be removed from the article. If not, it must be explicitly attributed to a named person, or if the conjecture is shared among multiple scholars, at least eon source that makes that specific conjecture must be cited.
"AMAZING FACTS ON HISTORY" is a wordpress source, which almost always means a source not considered reliable. With no listed author or publisher, this should not be used. I see that it in turn cites several source -- those could perhaps be used directly.
I hope that I have clarified my issues with this section. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying two points
I am sorry for writing my early reply to the incorrect place. I am still learning how to manage the various place to send information and in particular where to find those places. I write again here because this only applies to your comments to me.
I never referred to the Isola page as "my page". Nowhere on the page did I take credit for the work. I only referred to "my work" in my reply to you because in suggesting that some citations were missing, I thought you were asking me to cite my investigations. My misunderstanding. I understand the inapprpriatenous of stating authorship.
Yes, the "Statuto" of Isola delle Femmine is long and in Italian. The reason that "Pliny" is not found is because it is written in Italian as "Plinio". While Google Translate can be useful for some, it almost gets translations close to correct but makes several mistakes. I am capable of reading and writing Italian if not as well as one native born there. I did study in Firenze as a student. I did translate the entire section called "Background" and can reference more of the legends as described there.
I will see how I can deal with the issues you have raised with the present state of English Wikipedia page about Isola delle Femmine. You might want to find someone to make similar checks of the similar page available in different languages. I did not contribute to any of them but I read the one in Italian. It covers much of the English version but not all and makes no attempt to cover the 12th century edict that gave the first record of the name the small island.
JiminiVecchio (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, JiminiVecchio
Don't worry about responding here instead of on the article talk page -- it did get my attention, and Wikipedia can be a complex place.
My apologies if I mis-read you as saying "my page". It is a mistake that many newer editors make, and not a huge issue.
There is nothing wrong with citing a long source -- I had occasion recently to cite a book several hundred pages long. But when you do cite such a source, please provide a page number (or numbers) so that the reader knows where in the document to look. Please use |page= or |pages= for this purpose. Similarly there is nothing wrong with a source in Italian. But it is helpful to provide a translated version of the source title with |trans-title= and of the publication title with |trans-work= (if the source is an article or story in a larger publication such as a journal, magazine, or book).
I quite agree that Google translate is not yet good enough to put its output into an article. But it is often good enough to verify a source. Not to write from the source, into an article perhaps, but to check that the source does in fact support the statements for which it is cited. That is how I was using it.
I regret that I am not capable of reading, much less translating Italian. I was once somewhat capable in French, but that was years ago and i don't think I would be competent now.
Thank you. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who provided the old reference in NYT and the information for his previous association with tobacco
Thanks but the URL for NYT had a yahoo search extension which I deleted.t I was the one who added that information in the reference section and someone edited it in the body of the page on Andrew Tisch according to my original summary. I still dont understand what cite is for and how to use. I see you didnt use it at all in your suggested edit. How do you us the cite arrows and when to use it. Did you use it but omitted it in your suggested text.
Bloopersbetty (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Bloopersbetty[reply]
Thank you, Bloopersbetty I had missed that. I have now removed the search extension.
I am nit sure what you mean by the cite arrows. If you refer to the refToolbar, which displays as "cite" to the right of the "help" link, It is described in some detail at Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/3 and in fuller detail at Wikipedia:RefToolbar. This is a tool for constructing (and editing) reference citations. It produces the same output as a manually constructed citation, so you can't tell whether it was used or not from looking at the result. Well, except that there are some characteristic errors and oddities it sometimes produces which a manual editor would be unlikely to. One is stuffing the name of the work, and sometimes other information, into the article title, separated from the proper title by {{!}}. Another is giving the article title in all caps. When using the refToolbar to build a citation, one must always check and correct the output, as the script is not quite up to standard, and is certainly not as good as a human. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion at User talk:Dane#Deprodding of Deepika Dhiman
Hi again DES. Please also take a look at User talk:Dane#Deprodding of Karate Association of Darbhanga. Pretty much the same thing as before only this time I actually did ask about this article at WT:MARTIAL#Karate Association of Darbhanga and the feedback I got did seem to think this organization isn't probably notable. For reference, I've already added the latest account to the SPI.There were some concerns raised at previous SPIs that all of this socking might be related to WP:UPE. My opinion is that it's likely not going to stop, but I'm not sure whether (at least at this stage) it qualifies as WP:LTA. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
You've got mail
Hello, DESiegel. 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.Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Recent active admin - afd TNT
Hi, could you have a look at a proposal to WP:TNT a deletion discussion that has got out of hand or any other appropriate remedy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EditPage/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pramati_Technologies_(2nd_nomination) I selected you based off recent active admin status. PainProf (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for August 3
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
Hi DESiegel. Just a quick thank you for undeleting "Draft:Steve Mahabir" so promptly. I also appreciate the editorial comment. Hollander1961 (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite welcome, Hollander1961. I have made a few additional small edits. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:talk:Cory H Jones
Just a heads up your comment on User talk:Cory H Jones’s talk page inadvertently uses the User:Khushi patan nazia user name in the content. Cheers. Theroadislong (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback re: Handschriftencensus
thanks for the tips on straightening out my citations, I will go to work on learning how to do it. As I study and work at the University where Handschriftencensus is located, but not for Handschriftencensus directly, I disclosed my association and made it a point to write in a neutral tone. What is your impression, is there anything which sticks out, which could be improved in that regard? Hroberth Dunbar —Preceding undated comment added 19:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, {U|Hroberth Dunbar}}
The text from the lead section Handschriftencensus is consulted world-wide as a competence center for the research of tradition documents: medieval German language fragments and manuscripts, for ascertaining them and their description norms, i.e. work and signature, as well as the identity of the text. I find a bit confusing, and in my view the nEnglish grammer here is a bit lacking. What is meant by "tradition documents" and "description norms" exactly?
"codicological" is a somewhat obscure word, although on looking it up it seems not inaccurate. a brief explanatory parenthesis or not might be a good idea.
The unique extent of the descriptions... might be better as simply the descriptions "unique extent" is a somewhat unusual phrase in English.
It might be useful to list the scope of the Handschriftencensus project in terms of the rane dates of manuiscripts included, if this has been defined.
the draft currently appears neutral, not promotional nor biased, in my view. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. Yes, some of the phrasing is a bit clumsy. I will fix it as best as I can. "Codicological" as in Codicology is certainly obscure, yet very accurate in this case, ie. HSC is exactly about book culture. I see there is a Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EditPage/Codicology, perhaps I can work the link in?
"Tradition" (in this context) and "witness" are also very geeky philological terms that no one besides a philologist would be familiar with. It may be better to find more pedestrian synonyms?
Yes, I am sure i can find the range of dates in the literature.
I officially submitted the article for review but will go about the edits you suggested.
I greatly appreciate your help and feedback.
Hroberth Dunbar ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hroberth Dunbar (talk • contribs) 09:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmass Fakahany until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Nathan2055talk - contribs 23:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notifying you as the admin who declined the speedy. Nathan2055talk - contribs 23:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rob Kajiwara
Hi, I saw that you declined my speedy deletion request for Rob Kajiwara’s wikipedia page. As your reason, you quoted the wikipedia article stating "being featured in the upcoming ... film More Than Just a Brick in the Wall, which has a $39,000,000 budget”. However, when I click on the reference given for this claim, it links to a page on Mr. Kajiwara’s record label/production company, but does not contain any mention of the $39,000,000 figure. Considering this page was created by Mr. Kajiwara himself (see below paragraph), it is likely he lied about this figure for the purposes of self-promotion. Due to this, I believe that Rob Kajiwara is not a person of significance.
I’m also not sure where to mention this, but feel that you would be a good person to talk to. I believe that the creator of the Wikipedia page for Rob Kajiwara, “Wideyedwanderer”, is Mr. Kajiwara himself. There are many pieces of information that don’t have any source whatsoever, indicating it was written by someone with an intimate knowledge of Mr. Kajiwara’s life . Furthermore, “Wideyedwanderer” uploaded a photo on wikicommons and mentioned that the author is Rob Kajiwara, citing “own work” as the source. Furthermore, this same user has been busy adding references to Rob Kajiwara’s wikipedia page across various articles, usually under the "notable people” category. One bizarre example is a university that Mr. Kajiwara briefly attended - Kajiwara was listed as one of the “notable people” who have attended the school! According to the “Don’t talk about yourself” guideline, this is extremely unethical. I have removed all such references that were added.
In conclusion, I don’t think Rob Kajiwara is a person of significant interest. Further, I believe he is the creator of his own wikipedia page and has been busy inserting references to his own wikipedia page in as many articles as he can, no matter how obscure the relationship is. I believe his wikipedia page should be deleted, and perhaps, he should be reprimanded in some form.
99.250.152.194 (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, IP editor. Please do remember that a Claim of significance is a statemented which if supported by a source might tend to indicate that an article should be retained. It is sufficient that an article should not be deleted without discussion. It is not itself anything like enough to say that an article should not be deleted. When evaluating an A7 speedy request, I do not look for or evaluate sources, because the presence or absence of sources is largely irrelevant to that decision. Also, please note that autobiography, while discouraged, is not forbidden, and is not a reason to speedy delete, or indeed to delete, any article. Nor is the practice of inserting dubious or unwarranted links in other Wikipedia articles a reason for deletion of the article, although it might be a reason for blocking the editor if it rises to the level of disruptive editing. The possible reasons for deletion are the same as for any article, and by far the most common one is lack of notability. Establishing this takes some effort, and the nominator must do a WP:BEFORE search, and consider possible alternatives to deletion. Deletion is, or should be, a last resort when nothing else will serve.
Note that if Kajiwara's notability is establish -- say if there is an AfD discussion and the article is kept -- it is perfectly appropriate to list him among the notable attendees of any institution that he did verifiably attend, even briefly. There is nothing "bizarre" about that. If the article is deleted, of course all those links should be removed.
For the future, the place to report soemoen editing about him- or herself without disclosing the relationship is [[WP:COIN}}, the conflict of interest noticeboard.
Finally I urge you to consider creating and using a Wikipedia account. It is free. It does not even require disclosing your email address. And it makes communication with other editors significantly easier. It also actually protects your privacy better then editing without an account, as your IP address is no longer exposed to the public with each edit, but instead is restricted to a very small number of functionaries, all of whom have signed agreements not to disclose such information. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your thread has been archived
Thank you
Just a note to thank you for your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medal "For services in the field of military cooperation". I left a response, I hope you don't see it as argumentative or confrontational, because I absolutely do not intend that way, it's an honest attempt to solicit your feedback. I am listening and am interested in your reply. I also read your essay Wikipedia:Process is Important and found it thoughtful and useful. I think much of what you write there reflect my feelings on why we need to stick to guidelines and policies at AfD. I hope this finds you well, Best wishes, // Timothy :: talk 20:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you in turn,TimothyBlue I do not object to the tone with which you made your arguments, although in my view your earlier comments to Necrothesp were ill-advised -- overly snarky if that editor had in fact been comparatively new, and looking rather silly when it turns out that Necrothesp is a very experienced editor indeed, and one who has been very active on the subject of medals and awards over the years -- check out the talk page of the relevant wiki project. I think you are treating the GNG as being more of an absolute than it is, and forgetting that new guidelines, including new SNGs, often arise by codifying existing practice, not de novo. The suggestion of a TBAN was IMO far over the top, and i am glad it was dropepd with no further discussion. But there ids no need to apologize fro defending existing guidelines against when seems to you to be excessive bending, nor to holding to your views and stating them as firmly and clearly as you can. FYI I came to this discussion from wp:DRV, where I am something of a regular. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your input. As far as I know the picture is not copyrighed to anyone apart from Michelle but of course I will be checking this out. The page is a 'draft'. I appreciate and respect Wikipedia's guidelines, policies and procedures.
All photographs are copyrighted the moment they are taken, under US law. This is true even if no copyright notice appears on or with the photo. The copyright is initially held by the photographer unless there is a contractual arrangement between the photographer and his or her employer, in which case the copyright may be held by the employer, if the contract so specifies. In either case the photo is under copyright, and Wikipedia's copyright policy does not permit its use unless there has been a written release by the copyright holder under a compatible free license, such as CC-BY-SA 3.0.
I ask again what you did not answer before, where exactly did this picture come from? Was it published? If so where and by Whom? The procedure is that the uploader of a photo must indicate the source, and if possible the photographer and copyright holder. Wikipedia is rather strict in enforcement of this policy. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware that Draft:Michelle Baharier is a draft, but the copyright policy still applies, even to drafts. If File:Michelle Portrait.jpg is not properly licensed, it will be deleted from Wikipedia and from Wikimedia Commons. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Filter to prevent links to Draft articles being added in mainspace
@DESiegel: I think you have enough examples, go ahead an list at WP:EF/R, referencing this for next steps. — xaosfluxTalk 23:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you no longer think it is a good idea? whether you have been too busy? or whatever - please let me know - best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 09:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Arjayay. Thanks for the reminder. I've just let it slip, while a bit busy with other things. I have continued the AWB runs, picking up 1-4 items a day on average. I'll attend to this now. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - for the record I've been removing 1-3 a day as well - different time zones can be advantageous - best wishes and thanks again - Arjayay (talk) 08:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yaacov Heller Draft
Hello David,
I hope all is well with you during this pandemic.
I talked to you several months ago and took what you said seriously and re did Yaacov Heller's entire article which I hope gets published on Wikipedia. The new article has significant research, referencing, etc.
I would appreciate it if you would kindly take a look at the draft for Yaacov (Draft:Yaacov Heller) which I've submitted for review. I've essentially finished and I'm waiting for comments and/or approval from an Administrator. I would appreciate your feedback.
Thank you sir.
Eric (EKP1234 (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Awards. Most of the awards should be cited, or at least many of them. Notable awards should be ones that either already have Wikipedia articles about the award, or would probably qualify for such articles. If you are not going to limit in this way, say "selected" awards or just "Awards" if the list is complete or nearly complete.
Please avoid name-dropping and citing sources that dot say anything about Heller.
Please provide dates of publication and authors whenever possible. However do not put "staff" or the name of a paper in the "last=" slot, that is only for the name of an actual hum,an author.
The work= parameter (or its aliases website= or newspaper=) should have the name of the publication, not its web domain. "Sun Sentinel, not sun-sentinel.com, please. Somne of the tools that generate a cite from a URL get this wrong.
Section headers use sentence case, not title case. Only the fist word is capitalized, except for proper names.
A few other things need citations, which I have indicated.
I have fixed some of the above, where I could -- generally the formatting issues. I can't add sources, or at least I haven't tried to do so.
Overall, this is looking pretty good. If you can add citations to some of the awards and the other places where i put cite needed tags, I think I will be able to approve this. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David, Hope you're doing well. I took into account the suggestions and changes you asked me to make. I also made some other edits as requested by another editor with the username 'Hoary'. I would really appreciate if you could take another look at it and see if it's still lacking something. I tried to add a few more references but not everything is referenced e.g Yaacov's notable works. If that's an issue , should I remove unreferenced things in the 'Notable Works' section?
Hoping to hear from you sir! EKP1234 (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, EKP1234 On a quick look, several sources have been added. Probably a significant improvement. On the works, any that can be cited should be. But it is probably enough to rename the section from "Notable works" to just "Selected works". I won't have time for a detailed reveiw today. I will try to look as soon as I can. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've got mail
Hello, DESiegel. 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.Normal Op (talk) 03:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Offshoots of Operation Car Wash
Hi DES - not sure what's happening at Offshoots of Operation Car Wash, specifically here. It says it is transcluded from Draft:Operation Car Wash investigations, but Draft:Operation Car Wash investigations is a redirect to Offshoots of Operation Car Wash so that is circular - i.e. it's claiming to be transcluded from the same page it appears on - I'm confused - but there's nothing new in that - any ideas? - Arjayay (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Arjayay, I think I have fixed this, see this edit DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that looks good - I just seemed to be going round in figure eights (like circles but more complex) - thanks again - Arjayay (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Arjayay: Lol, sorry about the confusion; DES you seem to have figured it out now, though. Anyway, "Phases" was just moved from Draft to Mainspace, so maybe that's responsible for the timing of this. The older "Offshoots" redirect Draft:Operation Car Wash investigations doesn't have a lot of in-links (and none from mainspace), and they could all be updated, and the redirect deleted, if that helps any. Mathglot (talk) 09:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
Hissing at the U.S. flag
Could you please block user:Hissing at the U.S. flag ASAP for vandalism. She clearly will not stop until blocked. CLCStudent (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another admin blocvked this user while I was checkign the diffs, CLCStudent. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
need help
Can you please review my draft (about an easily verifiable geographic location, and which I provided multiple sources)..and see what it still needs to be acceptable for Wikipedia. Thank you. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EditPage/Special:MobileDiff/975232084 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B16D:882D:21B1:E29C:4E9E:BC34 (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse closure
Hey there, I noticed that you reverted my edit on closing SALivesMatter's section. Could you clarify what do you mean when you say "valid discussion"? SALivesMatter has been blocked: they are clearly only trying to promote their whatever political thing they are in. A look at their contribs will tell you that. Is there any way that it is supposedly "valid"? Cause I think they're not even tryna contribute. Looking up, users who are blocked have had their discussions closed. A response would be great, thank you :) GeraldWL 01:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gerald Waldo Luis, the question was valid, whether the asker was or not. In any case, blocked users can be unblockled, sometimes quite rapidly.
In any case, I will revert any such closure, or any deletion of a legitimate question (whoever the asker may be, blocked or not) on sight and without discussion in advance. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for answering. If that's the case, then I would like to point out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EditPage/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Please_can_I_ask_an_administrator_to_remove_User:Materialscientist? and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EditPage/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Sakura_School_Akademi. If the case is really that "Such closure [will be reverted], or any deletion of a legitimate question (whoever the asker may be, blocked or not) on sight and without discussion in advance," then the closure of those two discussions should be lifted up, whether the asker was or not. I have seen questions not valid in the Teahouse (such as the one I closed) not being closed, so perhaps those two discussions shouldn't be too. Forgive me if I misinterpret things; hope I got it right. GeraldWL 06:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aquaticity
Please review my article Aquaticity, all changes are in draft page, I wrote it again and added new references, thank you in advance Ydrofilos (talk) 07:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your thread has been archived
moving answer to correct section
No you didn't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. It looked to me as if you were answering the OP's other question. I'll move it back if you like, or you can do so yourself, of course. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Send me the Draft:Lake City via email?
I'm not sure on how to ping users, so I am just doing a message here regarding sending me the Lake City article. I have turned on email user.Zora Champion Mipha (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, how to ping a user is explained at WP:PING. In general, you use {{U|username}} (as I did for you just above) or {{ping|username}} or {{re|username}} or [[User:username]], and be sure to WP:SIGN the comment as part of the same edit. If the edit isn't signed, the ping does not work. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MfD
Hello,
It's me from the MfDs. Just a note to say I misinterpreted MfD criteria (especially for drafts) and so flagged those two when I shouldn't have. They were my first and so far only nominations. SmokeyJoe kindly walked me through draft deletion and I understand it correctly now so I shouldn't be doing any more erroneous noms. Sorry about that.
Regards, Giraffer (munch) 22:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
"No problem, Giraffer. We all have to learn sometime. I don't fully agree with SmokeyJoe about how draftspace should be used, but we agree on this kind of nom. I am only surprised how many editors who should know better , because thery are experienced at MfD, don't seem to. But we all must learn sometime. Thanks for your reply. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Links to User pages
Hi DES Just when you thought it was safe to go back in .... I was checking for links to draft articles, when I came across
this edit linking to this user page - I removed the link and then searched for other such links as per this search and removed a couple more. I have only checked the first 100 and the vast majority are links to bots. You may have had enough with links to drafts, and not want to know about this, but I wonder if a block on links to user-pages in articles, is worth adding to the existing proposal for a block on links to draft pages? - Arjayay (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know about this, Arjayay. I am inclined, right off the bat, not to add this to the filter proposal. Why? Because links to draft pages are almost always improper -- although I have found a few where such links are inside maintenance templates or PROD templates, explaining that content in an article is duplicated in a draft. Also there is an MOS provision to cite against links to drafts. I am not sure if there is a similar one about links to user pages, and links to bot user pages may well be legit, and a filter needs to have pretty clear certainty. However, AwB runs allow human case-by-case judgement. We will see. Again thanks. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Request
Hello ,I write this to request you something.
A page named Manjappada Kerala Blasters Fans was protected from further submitting the draft.Please see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EditPage/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Manjappada_Kerala_Blasters_Fans .Just because of the fact that it was already deleted twice as per AFD due to lack of reliable sources and notabilty, it cannot be protected from further submission.Because now I believe that the article has enough notability and I am ready to submit it for AFC.I have the article structure in my sandbox as well.Please kindly note my sandbox
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EditPage/User:Shahoodu/sandbox
So I kindly request you to remove the protection so I can procees with submission of draft.
Waiting for thr reply Shahoodu (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Shahoodu. Well, yes it can be protected when a consensus discussion has judged that the topic is not notable, and that repeated attempts to create an article are only wasting everyone's time. It is unusual that a fan organization is notable separately. Please read WP:NORG. Such protection was in fact imposed by the MfD you linked to above. That is what "salt" means in this connection. As that restriction was imposed after a consensus discussion, I am not going to unilaterally undo it. Nor am Igoing to review and evaluate some 40 sources. If you want that protection lifted, you will need to go to deletion review. It would also be a good idea to notify Scottywong, who closed the MfD. What I will do is this: if you identify the best three or four sources, ones which you think show passage of WP:NORG and WP:GNG, I will reveiw those and advise if I think Deletion Revioew would be worth while. All sources must be independent that is not in any way affiliated with teh fan organization or the team. They must also be reliable which means with a good reputation for editorial control and fact-checking. This excludes blogs, fan sites, user fora, and one-person sites. Please don't even bother listing sources that are not independent and reliable. And don't list more than 4, please, or I won't review them. You don't need my review to go to Deletion Review, (often known as "DRV"), but if I am convinced I will support your request there. But given the history here, this will be a hard case to make. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for the time.I will show you the best 4 independent sources.If all of them are from a single website would it be a problem Shahoodu (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shahoodu it would be better if they were from more than one site, please. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had sent you mail...kindly check please Shahoodu (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/kochi/2017/nov/17/yellow-army-kerala-blasters-12th-man-1703163.amp (please note yellow army is the english translation of manjappada.)
Well, not as good as I had hoped, not as bad as I had feared. Let's look at these sources:
This is a somewhat marginal result, Shahoodu but it might be worth presenting at WP:DRV. If you do, please be sure to emphasize these four sources, or a similar short list. Resist the temptation to impress with a large number off m,ore dubious sources. The probable result, of that will be to get the appear rejected without much consideration. If there are other sources of equal quality,m be sure they are included in the sand box version and mention that they can be provided on request. Remove any poor sources from the sand box version before starting the DRV discussion. In the opening statement, explain why you think the organization passes WP:NORG, in detail. Do not make a fuss over past actions which you think improper, accusing people of bad faith or vandalism. Simply state, calmly, that you think a decision was incorrect, and what Wikipedia policies, guidelines, or customs apply. Or if relevant information was not previously considered, say what information is available to be considered now. Do not say thinks like "You can't XYZ" -- someone may take that as a challenge and try to prove you wrong. Do not argue with every poster who expresses a view against the article/draft. See WP:BLUDGEON.
For future reference, this kind of thing could have been posted here on my talk page, there was no need to send an email. And I get an automatic notice here when I am sent an email via Wikipedia, there is no need to send two remainders to me. Any time you are awaiting a response from another editor, allow at least 24 hours on an urgent matter, unless you have been very specifically promised a faster response than that. On not so urgent matters (which this is) allow a week or more. People have other things to do, both on and off Wikipedia. Editors are not generally paid, and many work full-time. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understood what you said.Apologing for any inconvinience faced.Like you previously said ,if I make sure other 2 more source pass all the criterias ,I hope you will also support in favour at DRV Shahoodu (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
About the reliability of goal.com, I would like to point out the fact that it is one of the most reliable sources that editors use to confirm news relates to football.Goal.com confirms all the major football transfer news and mostly recently ,Lionel messi gave his first official interview to them after spreading the rumours about his exit from Barcelona.That interview were even covered by international and local newspapers in the my country.
I hope you understood the fact.
Thank you for your time again Shahoodu (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite welcome, Shahoodu. I wasn't complaining, but advising you what would go down better in the future, or that was my intent. As to goal.com, I am glad to hear it. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for passing your knowledge regarding the matter.Now I have an Idea how to proceed with this.Hope I can contact you in future in case any doubt Shahoodu (talk) 04:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've got mail
№
Hello, DESiegel. 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.Shahoodu (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent the 4 links for the independent sources.Please kindly check the mail and tell me your opinion
Sadas db - Company pages Feedback request
hello,
I really appreciated your feedback about my sandbox page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EditPage/User:Giuseppe_Ardolino/sandbox#History). As suggested, I changed some part of the text related to English and canceled acronyms as S.r.l, S.p.A. Concerning the references/sources, what do you think about references? I added sources taking account of previous feedbacks. I read the guidelines and the sources of pages are external to the company website (They are related to clients and partners). Thank you for your collaboration
Giuseppe Ardolino (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Giuseppe Ardolino It is a start, but there is a ways to go in my view.
Sources elated to clients and partners are probably not independent, which is what is wanted. Try to find sources like newspapers and magazines, and other coverage from parties in no way affiliated with the company.
Reviews or evaluations of the company and its products from tryly independent sources, in no way affiliated with teh comopanyt, would be very helpful.
Sources such as "The CEO of Sadas participates as a speaker at Leasenews 2019", " Servicing improves business processes thanks to Sadas Engine technology", and " Banca Popolare di Sondrio uses Sadas Engine to manage the sources of data sources" sound like compoany influenced or affiliated sources. As I only read English, i cannot confirm this.
Please provide fuller bibliographic information for source items. Include the publication, or name of web site, in which the content appeared, the author if know, the date (or at least the year) if know, and the name of the publisher, when this adds context. Also, if the source is not in English, please indicate the source language, and if the title is not in English, please provide a translation of the title in square brackets. The Citation templates such as {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite book}}, and others, will format citations consistently, but they are not required.
Text such as mother company of the AS Group, The company bases its value on Sadas Engine's proprietary technology, and thanks to an “intelligent Upload” mechanism and a “Learn by Usage” technology. still sound rather promotional.
Please do not use euphemisms such as "passed away". Instead write "died".
When providing numbers, such as employee count or revenue, indicate explicitly what year they apply to. Remember that if the article is approved it will be around for years, and cannot be expected to be updated every year. Even if it is, a reader will not know that it has been unless the date is provided.
I hope those points are helpful. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DES, thanks for your precious contribution. I modified my sandbox thanks to your feedback (I deleted the promotional part, modified some words, and added years details for employees. I kindly ask to explain this feedback: "Also, if the source is not in English, please indicate the source language, and if the title is not in English, please provide a translation of the title in square brackets. The Citation templates such as {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite book}}, and others, will format citations consistently, but they are not required.", Please could you give me some examples? I know it's not mandatory but I want to respect all guidelines in order to publish without problems. Thank you }} Giuseppe Ardolino (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Giuseppe Ardolino, here is an example. Suppose you were doing an article about a work of literature written in French, and there was a review, also published in French, that you wanted to cite. Let's assume it is not online. A Basic citation using a template might be written like this (I am inventing an imaginary publication for an example):
<ref>{{cite journal|title=Nom d'un Chien |work=Revus d'lheur |date=15 June 1971}}</ref>
This would appear in the reference list as:
"Nom d'n Chien". Revus d'lheur. 15 June 1971.
A fuller citation of the same source using the same template might be written like this:
<ref>{{cite journal|title=Nom d'un Chien |trans-title=Name of a dog |lang=fr |work=Revus d'lheur |trans-work=Reviews of the Hour |first=Jaques |last=Ecrivian |volume=24 |issue=12 |page=48 |date=15 June 1971 |publisher=Editions Rogue |quote=Renard's "A Dog's Life" shows a delicacy of construction rarely seen in provincial works from the 1860s.}}</ref>
This would appear in the reference list as:
Ecrivian, Jaques (15 June 1971). "Nom d'un Chien" [Name of a dog]. Revus d'lheur [Reviews of the Hour] (in French). 24 (12). Editions Rogue: 48. Renard's "A Dog's Life" shows a delicacy of construction rarely seen in English.
The |lang= gives the language in which the source is written. Its value is the name of the language, or better yet, the ISO code for the language. The |trans-title= gives the title of the source translated into English. The |trans-work= give the name of the publication (newspaper, journal, magazine, website, or the like) translated into English. The |quote= parameter gives a short relevant quote from the source that supports the point made in the article for which the source is being cited. It is particularly useful when the source is offline, or behind a paywall, or when the source is a long web page without page numbers and it might be hard to find the relevant part of the source document otherwise. All of these are optional, but often helpful.
See referencing for Beginners and Help:Footnotes for more on how to do citations, and particularly how to use citation templates. Note that templates are not required, the same info can be included manually instead, but the templates will always use the same consistent formatting, and handle the placement of italics and boldface in a consistent way. They (templates) also emit "microformat" info in the HTML that automatic scanning programs can read. The RefToolbar can help build citation templates in the source editor, and the cite button can do so in the Visual editor. Thre are other tools available as well.
I jsut took a look at the sandbox, Giuseppe Ardolino. I note that currntly many of the refernfes just give the title of the source and a link. They do not give the date (not even a year), do not give the name of the publication in which the source is contained, and do not list the author. Those are fairly basic pieces of information. They help the reader asses the value of a source without needing to click on a link, and they can help get an archived version of a source in palce if the link ever breaks. They can be provided manually or using a template. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DES, I really thank you for your feedback and contribution. I modified my sandbox ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EditPage/User:Giuseppe_Ardolino/sandbox) and in particular references in accordance with the suggested template (where possible I added more information). I reviewed the promotional tone. Do you think it's possible to publish the page in respect of Wikipedia rules? Have a great weekend and thank you again }} Giuseppe Ardolino (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DES, do u have some advice for my feedback request? I would like to improve my page to publish on Wikipedia without errors. Thank you again }} Giuseppe Ardolino (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Giuseppe Ardolino I have replied at length on User talk:Giuseppe Ardolino/sandbox. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Review of Adeeb Ahamed
Hi DES,
Please could you review the page- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EditPage/Draft:Adeeb_Ahamed_(businessman). I had contested deletion review as I felt the page was incorrectly deleted through articles for deletion review. They recommended that a new draft be created as the page had merits. Please could you check as you had voiced the page should not have been deleted in deletion review. Thank you for your time.
(Kuruvillac (talk) 05:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Florent Pereira
The subject recently died and now has more sources. I was the one who deleted the article previously (My old user name was DragoMynaa). TamilMirchi (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TamilMirchi: It does not follow that because a person has died that there can be no new sources about that person. Many people are written about more extensively after their deaths than before. And there could well be sources already existing but not previously considered. Nor did you delete the article. Rather you nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florent Pereira (2nd nomination). It was deleted by Premeditated Chaos who closed the AfD. Note that only three users commented in the AfD, and one suggested draftification. Only you were explicit about wanting deletion. I have undeleted the article to draft space as per a request at WP:REFUND by Neutral Fan. I was aware of the previous AfD, as shown by my adding it to the restored talk page for the draft. I am not quite sure what it is you want me to do, or what objection you have, if any, to the restoration. Please be clear if you want me to take some action beyond what I have already done in this matter. Thank you. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DESiegel: What I meant is that can I recreate the article since he died? I have a made a draft (Draft:Florent C. Pereira) with more sources. TamilMirchi (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TamilMirchi The article has been restored at Draft:Florent Pereira. Please edit it there until it is clearly ready to move back to the main article space, adding such additional sources as may be available and appropriate. It is not helpful to have both a draft and an articel about the same topic or person, as a rule. Please cooperate with Neutral Fan, who requested restoration, if possible. I presume that both of you want a valid article in mainspace. I have tagged to article for the AfC project, but any editor in good standing who is at least autoconfirmed may bypass that if such editor sees fit. It is also not helpful to have multiple drafts on the same topic, and i am going to redirect the newer one to the restored one, to preserve the history. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TamilMirchi You are free to copy content and references from the history of the redirected draft to the restored draft. Please provided fuller bibliographic info for sources than was present in the redirected draft. Thank you. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DESiegel Thank you so much. Just wondering if the draft could be moved to an article now?TamilMirchi (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing this. Looks good to me. Neutral Fan (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
a7
I know we occasionally disagree about A7, and I've taken a few of them to afd, but I seriously do not think that "Kline currently serves as the Executive Vice President of Franchise Development[1] at My Place Hotels" " is something that could rationally be consider a claim to significance for an encyclopedia article. President, sure, VP if it's impt enough for a WP article, probably . but otherwise VP of a non-famous corporation, no. Anyway, It'll be at afd. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree, DGG, that such a statement does not establish notability. I am not at all sure that I would favor keeping at an AfD. Indeed unless additional sources are found, i would probably favor deletion. But it seems to mea that there is a reasonable chance that investigation would find such additional sources. Many VPs do have at least the basic three independent sources with significant coverage. Not all do, but in my view this means that a BEFORE search and a discussion are needed before deletion. I am far more concerned with avoiding speedy deletion of topics that would have proved notable if looked into than with avoiding AfDs that end in deletion. I will be interested in the outcome of the discussion. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
Thank you for your help with the infobox! I really appreciate it. All my best, Maryphillips1952 (talk) 01:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:David Day (Canadian writer)
Hi there! I found your draft by chance and took the liberty to add a paragraph, it seemed weird not to mention at all the subject on which David Day was notable (even if I had trouble sourcing, most relevant stuff is on websites that no longer exist or fan pages). IMO this can be merged back to the article namespace :). -- Luk talk 06:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me, I agree with you that these sources are problematic (the Amazon one could be constructed as the author's word). For someone that has sold that many books, I'm surprised his online footprint is so small outside of these circles. -- Luk talk 21:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Request for uninvolved admin comment
Dear DESiegel,
First, sorry to add to your work.
I have recently brought up an incident to the noticeboard. After some discussion, I am there proposing to act as a WP:THIRD opinion so as to solve the dispute (between two other editors) in a more smooth and civil way. There are more details on the proposal there.
So far, there has been no input from neutral uninvolved admins, which is why I come to you.
If you could arrange such an opinion for me, even if it is not yours, I'd greatly appreciate it.
Best, Walwal20talk ▾ contribs 22:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Walwal20. I have just read through the ANI thread -- I had actually seen the first part of it when posting the thread below it. I will say that I have interacted with David Eppstein a number of times at the Teahouse, and I generally respect his judgement. I can't yet opine in this particular case, however. I will post to the thread and try to help. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DESiegel, thanks a lot for hearing me out, and sorry again for placing more work on your shoulders. I have zero qualification to resolve the dispute, so I'm glad someone more experienced took over. I'm also ready to being reproached for any wrong/weird/hasty conduct I might have taken during the process so far. Thanks again, Walwal20talk ▾ contribs 09:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the whole, I think that you did OK, Walwal20. Perhaps you could have waited for a further exchange with JBL on that user's talk page before going to ANI. And your proposal to be an uninvited third opinion was perhaps unwise, given your limited experience with such things, and that you had also been the person to raise the issue at ANI. Although note that what I did was not so very different from what you proposed to do. But you were in my view very correct that the mass reverts had to stop, or at least pause.
I admit to being curious as to how you came to choose me to reach out to. I don't recall interacting with you previously. But it doesn't really matter. There is more to do on this issue I think, but both parties are talking more reasonably now, I think. Thanks for bringing the matter to my attention. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the feedback. I think I can do better next time. As to how I chose to bring this to you specifically, I guess I forgot to state that in my initial message to you. I had found your name on the list of currently active admins at the time I decided to contact an admin directly, that's why. Walwal20talk ▾ contribs 22:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
Thank you for your help in finding PD images. The Cornell U Library site was very helpful.Maryphillips1952 (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review! Any comments?
Thank you for the review of User:Catavar/sandbox/Ben_Collins-Sussman! I received an email from Wikipedia saying you had reviewed it, but if you left any comments or suggestions, I don't know where to find them. Is this a "looks good, submit to AFC" or is it a "fix these things" kind of review? Thank you! Catavar (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
so complicated to cahnge out a pic- can you help? my father is james b donovan - current photo is terrible /wish to change but instructions are too much!
Brooklyn blonde (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry you are finding my advice complicated, Brooklyn blonde. What is the source of your suggested replacement picture? Who took it, and when? Who owns the copyright? Is it online, and if it is, what is the address? Why would the replacement be better, or at least as good, for readers of the article? Merely being a more flattering image is not much of a reason to change the current image, which seems to give a rather striking impression of your father, although of course I have no idea how accurate or inaccurate it may be. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!
Your thoughts at DRV
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EditPage/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_September_25?markasread=200645887&markasreadwiki=enwiki#Draft:Manjappada_Kerala_Blasters_Fans
The matter I already discussed with you is at DRV. Please tell your thoughts here Shahoodu (talk) 04:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shahoodu I have commented st the DRV DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your valuable time there. Shahoodu (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is this ok
http://www.firstpost.com/sports/isl-2016-kerala-blasters-passionate-manjappada-fan-club-the-winners-before-the-final-3161688.html
I hope this is same as that of the other 2 links I shown Shahoodu (talk) 03:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this also have enough coverage about the fan club. https://www.sportskeeda.com/football/5-things-that-other-fan-clubs-can-learn-from-manjappada. Please analyse these two Shahoodu (talk) 03:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am showing one more here.
Please spend some time to go through all these 3 and tell me your opinion regarding these.Thus I can know whether it is
relevant or not.
https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/manjappada-diehard-kerala-blasters-fan-group-s-making-waves-111908 Shahoodu (talk) 05:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sportskeeda, and the thenewsminute articles are quite relevant and possibly helpful, Shahoodu. I cannot speak to the reputation of these publications, but the stories themselves look good to me. I urge you to mention them at the DRV discussion promptly. The earlier 2016 story from firstpost I think is of less value. It seems to be from a period before the fan group was really organized, so it is not really about the current group, because that did not yet exist. In a fully developed article it would probably be cited in a "History" or "Early days" section, but I think I would not add it to the DRV just now. All this is only my opinion, of course, and it will be for all who take part in the DRV discussion to decide. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thankyou Shahoodu (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion review for Diamond Standard
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Diamond Standard. 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. Nixie9✉ 13:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the notification, Nixie9, but I did not delete or indeed ever edit Diamond Standard according to the logs. The most recent deletion was by David Gerard, and the one before that was by Jo-Jo Eumerus. Those editors should be notified. I will, however, read any Deletion Review post made about this article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
g11 and biographies
I like to message users when I delete their creations, and I use User:Deepfriedokra/g11 where needed. But I'm seeing more biographies G11 tagged, and I feel I need a fresh message or an adjustment of the current one. Would you mind commenting at User talk:Deepfriedokra/g11#Adjusting for biographies to help me help them? --Deepfriedokra(talk) 18:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
newspapers.com
You said in the Teahouse that you paid to subscribe. I do not. You are aware of the program that allows Wikipedia editors to access newspapers.com for free, are you not?
If you are not, I don't remember how I found out or how you get a free subscription but here is where I asked about renewing mine.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am now aware of that, Vchimpanzee. I paid before I was aware. I will probably not renew my paid sub. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Need a help
Sorry to ping you.I had a problem it's solved now.Thanks in advance(WhiteFalcon1 (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Need a help
I tried to add true info about the 50 years old company the shakti plastic industries however it was delete please help.
Dhananjayrv (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This draft was on the G13 stale draft list for today but it looks like it just needs a little polishing. Do you want to submit it to AFC? LizRead!Talk! 03:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Your draft article, Draft:Catharine Paine Blaine
Hello, DESiegel. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Catharine Paine Blaine".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. LizRead!Talk! 18:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft article: Draft:David Day (Canadian writer)
@DESiegel: You haven't work on this draft since September 2020. I have written something on the talk page of this draft without notice of anyone. Does it mean that this draft will be deleted soon? --Melly42 (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User page Typo
Hello SE, I am Lucky10 (10-Is-Lucky) I just wanted to inform you that on your user page you have a typo. It
s located near the digital subscriptions: London Time Pages
Lucky10 🧊 Userpage🦜Talk 14:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
help me in approving my article
hi good evening Mr DESiegel .
i found your profile on wikipedia as a mentor and volunteer in helping new editors on wikipedia . i need help in this procedure . can you please help me finish my article .
my article is: about a person = masoud shafaghi
best regards
neda sajedi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neda.sajedi (talk • contribs) 15:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have been pruned from a list
Hi DESiegel! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed on the AFC's participants list, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 6 months. Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to regain access to the AFCH script, you can do so at any time by visiting WT:AFCP. Thank you for your work at AFC, and if you start editing Wikipedia again we hope you will rejoin us.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Concern regarding Draft:Betsy James Wyeth
Hello, DESiegel. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Betsy James Wyeth, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
It would be nice to know your opinion.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Concern regarding Draft:David Day (Canadian writer)
Hello, DESiegel. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:David Day (Canadian writer), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft article, Draft:David Day (Canadian writer)
Hello, DESiegel. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "David Day".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Celestina007 (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
New page
I am new to editing in Wikipedia.
l Request Your help to create new pages on Important topic regarding Wildlife Science. Dijo Thomas Scientist (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month.
Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.
Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Understood DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Catharine Paine Blaine
Hello, DESiegel,
Just a head's up, when you restore an old draft, one that has been deleted as a CSD G13, you have to make an edit, even a minor edit, to the page or it shows up as eligible for deletion because the last edit to the page was over six months ago. Restoring it from deletion doesn't affect whether or not it is eligible, you must make an edit to the page. I have made an edit to the draft so it won't be tagged for deletion again. Thanks! LizRead!Talk! 00:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
How we will see unregistered users
Hi!
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
Thank you.
/Johan (WMF)
18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Betsy James Wyeth
Hello, DESiegel. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Betsy James Wyeth".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. LizRead!Talk! 20:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
always thank you for your help
Hi Mr Siegel,
There is an editor/administrator coming after profiles that have been here for years. questioning and deleting photos etc. One of the photos on Tamara Champlin's biography may have been questionable credentials, but the photo on Michael Caruso (musicians) profile was uploaded by its photographer. On Danielle Nicole (musician) biography there is a problem with the Concord Records photo. Please look into this and any help you can give me I would appreciate. Here is the reply I received:
@Paulhus15: I didn't remove the photo. I only asked about it at c:COM:VPC#File:Michael Anthony Caruso.jpg. The photo was tagged for speedy deletion by another editor named c:User:Jeff G. (see c:User talk:Fragmentsforart#File:Michael Anthony Caruso.jpg) and then subsequently deleted by a Commons administrator named c:User:Túrelio. Once the file was deleted from Commons, it was removed by a bot from the Wikipedia article. If you feel an error was made, you can always post a message explaining why at c:User talk:Túrelio. For reference, though, the fact that a file has been used for a long time doesn't mean it's was uploaded under an acceptable or verifiable license; it could just as easily mean that no body bothered to check the file's licensing for a long time. The same image can essentially be seen used online as the cover art of a single by Caruso that was released at least two years prior to photo being uploaded to Commons, and almost always in such cases more formal verification is needed for such a file to be kept. So, if the photographer who took the photo had previously allowed it to be used for the cover art before they uploaded it to Commons, all they will likely need to do is follow the instructions given in c:COM:Licensing images: when do I contact VRT? and the file can be restored after VRT verification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Paulhus15 (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.
22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Catharine Paine Blaine
Hello, DESiegel. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Catharine Paine Blaine".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. LizRead!Talk! 00:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Diff/1089271440
Hi, I just popped into your sandbox, as it was throwing an error message since it's not a talk page. Just wanted to let you know if you want to do anything. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 21:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How to create a Wikipedia article that will not be deleted
I read the archives of the main Help Desk and the Teahouse and frequently see your guide to how to created a Wikipedia article. Is this an essay anywhere?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just for documentation, this is similar and if I run across that, I don't need to ask Ian.thomson about it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Request (Rehmat Aziz Khan)
hi sir DESiegel please see draft Draft:Rehmat Aziz Khan references has been added. thanks --¬¬¬¬ 175.107.1.71 (talk) 10:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Principality of Ongal" listed at Redirects for discussion
Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month.
Se recomienda a los administradores inactivos que se reincorporen al proyecto de manera seria en lugar de realizar modificaciones simbólicas para evitar la pérdida de permisos administrativos. Hay recursos y asistencia para volver a participar en el proyecto disponibles en Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators . Si no tiene intención de volver a unirse al proyecto en un futuro próximo, considere renunciar voluntariamente a sus permisos administrativos mediante una solicitud en el tablón de anuncios de los burócratas .
Gracias por tus contribuciones anteriores al proyecto. — JJMC89 bot 02:59, 1 de noviembre de 2022 (UTC) [ responder ]
Suspensión inminente de permisos administrativos por inactividad
La política
establecida prevé la eliminación de los permisos administrativos de los usuarios que no hayan realizado ninguna edición ni registrado acciones en los doce meses anteriores. Debido a que ha estado inactivo, sus permisos administrativos se eliminarán si no vuelve a la actividad en los próximos días.
Se recomienda a los administradores inactivos que se reincorporen al proyecto de manera seria en lugar de realizar modificaciones simbólicas para evitar la pérdida de permisos administrativos. Hay recursos y asistencia para volver a participar en el proyecto disponibles en Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators . Si no tiene intención de volver a unirse al proyecto en un futuro próximo, considere renunciar voluntariamente a sus permisos administrativos mediante una solicitud en el tablón de anuncios de los burócratas .
Gracias por tus contribuciones anteriores al proyecto. — JJMC89 bot 09:41, 24 de noviembre de 2022 (UTC) [ responder ]
Suspensión de permisos administrativos por inactividad
La política
establecida prevé la eliminación de los permisos administrativos de los usuarios que no hayan realizado ninguna edición ni registrado acciones en los doce meses anteriores. Debido a que ha estado inactivo, se han eliminado sus permisos administrativos.
Sujeto a ciertos límites de tiempo y otras restricciones, sus permisos administrativos podrán ser devueltos previa solicitud a WP:BN .
Gracias por tus contribuciones anteriores al proyecto. — xaosflux Talk 00:38, 1 de diciembre de 2022 (UTC) [ responder ]
Saludos
Usuario:DESiegel , me estoy conectando aquí. Mientras escribo esto, estamos charlando en una llamada de moderación para Stack Exchange. ¡Es bueno conocerte! -Philippe ( discusión ) 22:35, 25 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hecho — xaosflux Talk 17:47, 2 abril 2018 (UTC)
. TonyBallioni ( discusión ) 02:53, 8 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) 
¡Hola! Tu propuesta de Mimi Mondal en la página de nominaciones de ¿Sabías que? ha sido revisada y es posible que sea necesario aclarar algunos problemas. Revisa los comentarios debajo de la entrada de tu nominación y responde allí lo antes posible. ¡Gracias por contribuir a ¿Sabías que?! BlueMoonset ( discusión ) 00:20 2 jun 2018 (UTC) 
Template:Speedy-Warn has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. [Username Needed] 11:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month.
.jpg/1280px-Gerard_van_Honthorst_-_Adoration_of_the_Shepherds_(1622).jpg)
.jpg/1280px-Happy_Holidays_(2135831016).jpg)
.jpg/1280px-Arbuckle_Bros._(3093003361).jpg)
,_cropped.jpg/1280px-A_book_of_country_clouds_and_sunshine_(1897),_cropped.jpg)
Thank you to you both! Doug Mehus T·C 22:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Dane#Deprodding of Deepika Dhiman. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
