User talk:Seraphimblade/archive 14

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

Re expired sanctions

Even though these are closed, I have concerns that this might be counted against me in any future disputes. I don't feel safe editing GG/ZQ articles right now, for example. A sanction being gone via expiration is nice, but not as nice as having it discredited and dismissed for being wrong in the first place.

Would you know if there is anything else to appeal to show that it was never warranted in the first place? Even now I don't think Gamaliel's actions were justified. The content I brought up on the talk page is stuff I think is still justified for article inclusion, but I obviously don't want to discuss adding it again on the talk page if it would just lead to more sanctions. Particularly since if this record is being held against me, people might justify that for filing them for more than a year or an altogether ban.

In this case the issue was that I linked a statement from the article subject about one of her past careers and whether we should include that in her background. This has both primary and secondary support. Instead of just discussing it peacefully on the talk I got sanctioned for even bringing it up which was pretty ridiculous. Ranze (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Gamaliel isn't around at this time, and also is no longer permitted to place sanctions in that topic area. I'd be hesitant to say a sanction was definitely invalid, when the individual who placed it isn't around to explain and defend the decision. Your request didn't really assert that you thought it was never justified, you seemed more to be asking to be given another chance, which was moot since expiration already did that. I think for now, best to drop it, and if you return to that particular topic area (which you need not do, we've got millions of other articles), treat that as a reminder that it's a very sensitive area, and you should be cautious in editing it, especially where living people are concerned. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Seraphimblade. You have new messages at Jauerback's talk page.
Message added 15:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 July 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks and a question

Thanks for your help about GMOs at AE. I have a procedural follow-up question, in case one step was overlooked: should Jusdafax be notified at his talk page about the warning? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Jusdafax participated in the request and was notified several times there, but can't hurt to be sure I suppose. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Breadth of sanction

I'm confused about whether I am still allowed to say why I have doubts about the opinions of other editors when I think that they might be influenced by less than ethical motivations. I replied to you on my talk page, and would a prefer a reply there unless you think it would be better here. EllenCT (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I ask that you and the committee please reconsider your sanction. I do not believe I can effectively improve the encyclopedia under the sanction you have proposed. It is as if you are asking someone to say only good things. What is good is subjective, and there is far too much latitude for interpretation under the sanction you have proposed. EllenCT (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@EllenCT: I'll presume you want to discuss your appeal here. I'm happy to have a discussion either at your talk page or mine, but not back and forth between the two. Insofar as you're appealing to me as the sanctioning administrator, I decline the appeal, because even now you apparently either did not read or did not understand what I said. You are by no means required to say only positive things. Rather, you are required to keep any negative things you say to be focused squarely and exclusively on content, and not speculate on, comment on, or even obliquely hint at your suspicions of the motivations or affiliations of other editors. That is not a requirement to say only positive things, it is a requirement to refrain from making things personal. You may, if you like, utilize the rest of the appeals process if you so desire, the details are linked to in the sanction template that detailed the sanctions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I also find the wording of the sanction confusing. The first part, "EllenCT is indefinitely prohibited from discussing the potential motivations of Wikipedia editors,"is clear. The second part is not. "as well as the actions of corporations or persons related to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology and agricultural chemicals." Is this a topic ban from the GMO area?Dialectric (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
@Dialectric: If EllenCT has further questions regarding the scope of her ban, I'm sure she's quite capable of asking them. But for reference, no, it is not a topic ban from GMOs altogether, or I would have just said that she and David Tornheim are both topic banned entirely from the area. Rather, it means that as an admin enforcing AE sanctions, I can't place a sanction that extends beyond the scope of the ArbCom case in question. So technically, she is not topic banned from speculating on the motives of editors working in the area of, say, Russian literature or Brazilian forms of dance. That's still not something I'd advise, but the behavioral restriction placed under ARBGMO can only be applied to topics under the jurisdiction of that case. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I also was a bit puzzled at the wording of the second part as mentioned by User:Dialectric. Taken literally, it says that User:EllenCT is prohibited from discussing "the actions of corporations or persons related to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed." I guess she could somehow discuss the chemical structure of glyphosate without mentioning Monsanto (i.e., "[a] corporation...related to genetically modified organisms") but it does sound very very close to a topic ban. I know you guys are sick to death of all the noise around this topic (as are many of the rest of us) but it would be helpful to be as clear as possible on this point. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I think The Wordsmith lived up to their username in putting this one together. Do keep in mind, this sanction is in lieu of a total topic ban, which in my view would've also been entirely justifiable in this case. This particular sanction, though, would still allow things. Like you said, discussion of the chemical structure of glyphosate, its methods of application, its prevalence of use, its effects as a herbicide, its claimed environmental and biological effects, laws and regulations regarding it, any of that stuff. The only thing it won't allow is the constant claim of "Bias! Shills!" It will, hopefully, focus discussion on the question "What do the best, most reliable sources say about this subject, and how can we best represent that in the corresponding articles?" Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
There was one small modification for clarity that doesn't seem to have made it into the final sanction. At AE, the vagueness of that clause had been brought up. I suggested changing it to "the Wikipedia-related actions of corporations or persons...".The intent was that she can still discuss things that Monsanto does in terms of writing articles about them, but not vaguely insinuate that they might be trying to manipulate Wikipedia content through paid shills. I don't know if you want to amend it or leave the version you went with, that's up to you. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
@The Wordsmith: I did notice that, so yes, leaving that out was deliberate. My concern there is that the wording that way would still seem to allow the "Well, Monsanto will sure be happy, won't they?" type sniping that we even saw during the request, since that doesn't explicitly reference a Wikipedia-related action. As always, though (and this should be made clear to EllenCT too), if the ban would apply in an absurd or silly way, I can as the administrator applying the sanction make an exception or modification to it, and especially when we're trying out a rather new idea, I don't have any problem doing that if it's warranted. So please feel free to ask. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I have no objection to leaving it how it is. If the sanction has unintended consequences later on we can always revisit the wording, but we'll try your version first and hope we got it right. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

If an editor with whom I have made such forbidden accusations against in the past shows up recommending sanctions against me in an area on which he's never edited, what am I allowed to say about it? EllenCT (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@EllenCT: You can't be sanctioned for anything you did before the ban was in effect. It would be perfectly alright for you to point out that what happened was before that. It's also generally accepted practice that you can speak in your own defense if any action is requested against you, but you shouldn't do that by trying to impugn the potential motives of other editors. Rather, you'd want to show that you didn't violate the restriction. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Restrictions like this are always tough. If a situation like this should arise, and you feel that you can't adequately defend your edits without commenting on the editor's history, you may ask either Seraphimblade (as the imposing administrator) or myself (as one willing to assist) and we can comment in that discussion. Really though, if you are making edits that can't be defended on their own merit in accordance with policies and guidelines then perhaps you should reconsider those edits. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I have a question of my own, along similar lines, and I raise it because it applies directly to a page discussion that was going on simultaneously with the AE. As Seraphimblade explained above, the chemistry of glyphosate, for example, is still an allowed topic. But what about the motivations of a person who is a BLP subject, in relation to his relationships with companies such as the company that makes glyphosate? I would understand that saying something like "the person who is the subject of this BLP behaved unethically with respect to his relationship with that company, and this page should indicate how he was unethical" is also forbidden. But maybe I'm mistaken? This will need to be made clear, to avoid misunderstandings. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Now someone has accused me of being topic banned in this instance because the forbidden allegations had "zero evidence," but I think they stand on their own. Am I allowed to ask an editor or administrator who took the allegations seriously and raised them independently of discussions I was involved with to defend me in the ways that I can't? Would that even be a worthwhile use of time if it were permissible? I doubt it, but now that I've been silenced on the topic, what do I do if false characterizations of the forbidden allegations persist in the form of personal attacks against me? EllenCT (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Seriously? I'm quite sure that someone being referred to is me. I invite anyone to look at Jimbo's talk page for clarification on what I said. Ellen seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding in regards to the difference between POV pushing and COI, the difference in the required evidence, and the venue where such evidence should be presented. I pointed out that it was arguable to say it was evidence of POV pushing but from that we don't jump to the claim of a COI. The response to Only in Death itself is very telling in that regard where it seems the expectation of questioning motives is perceived to be the norm rather than a serious breach of policy. Capeo (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
If you say you make food coloring and edit food coloring articles to remove health concerns established in reliable sources, that is a POV issue. If you say the best MEDRS-grade source on health aspects of food coloring is a fake review paid for by the food coloring industry, that's a COI issue. I honestly don't even know if I'm allowed to even make that analogy. EllenCT (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Look, I don't even care any anymore. I withdraw the question. I'll try to comply but I think this is stupid. EllenCT (talk) 02:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@EllenCT: You're welcome to think it's stupid. But "withdraw the question" or not, there are a couple of points I'd like to clarify. First, this does not mean you must tolerate and are prohibited from reporting abusive behavior toward you. It's perfectly alright for you to report that "User:Example said I'm a $INSULTING_TERM and should $HORRIBLE_THING. (diff)" It doesn't even prohibit you from providing context, by saying "User:Example also behaved this way toward me a week ago at $OTHER_PLACE (diff)." It just means you can't also throw in "I think User:Example is a shill for $COMPANY and is attacking me for that reason." But it certainly does not mean you must tolerate abuse toward you. It just means you must comment on the behavior, not what you suspect to be the motivations behind it. But it does not entitle or allow anyone to be abusive toward you without consequence and does not forbid you from reporting such a situation. Secondly, you're not forbidden from disagreements on content. "In your edit (diff), you put this forward. I don't think this appropriately reflects the references there (refs), since their consensus is $SOMETHING_ELSE. I think the article should reflect that by saying $YOUR_PROPOSED_WORDING." You just can't throw in there "Are you doing this because you're a shill for $COMPANY?" I don't think the ban here is anywhere near as broad as you think it is, and these things are expected under our existing content and conduct policies. You comment on the edit, not the editor. That's an expectation of everyone here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Closing on David Tornheim is horrible.

Horrible in the sense that it shuts down discussion about things that ARE HAPPENING on Wikipedia in the most McCarthyesque way. .... I mean, if people cannot even discuss what's going on, and get topic banned for even commenting on an arbitration with honesty, then this is a locked down goose step place, a fascist dictatorship, and as a major repository and representation tool for the world's knowledge that many people rely upon with the impression that there is a fair process for determining article content, that is a serious disservice to the world. It is a horrible closing. It's not good. It's not just. It's not honest. It's contrary to the ideals of Wikipedia. It's so patently obvious. SageRad (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you disagree. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

AE Opinion

My allegedly hyper-aggressive, RIGHTGREATWRONGS behavior would actually extend to the entirety of the encyclopedia according to SMcCandlish's brilliant analyses. Why, then, do you think I would stop at the broader American politics 2 topic if I'm so disruptive? I appreciate your unambiguous warning, but perhaps you should see what his point actually is. A TB will be ultimately ineffective, and my "behavior patterns" will lead to a downward spiral of blocks and bitterness. A tragic, yet predictable end for this awful disruptor. Correct? No. AGF. Doc talk 05:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I have looked over the year-old "American politics 2" page. No mention of Donald Trump, no mention of Hillary Clinton. Instead, "standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people." It is astonishing that you people feel that such a sanction would be appropriate in this case. Anything post-1932?! Shame on you for even suggesting it. Doc talk 08:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Sanctions can always be made narrower than the field encompassed by the discretionary sanctions (as, indeed, was already done in your case). But if the problem spreads, they can always be broadened. The reason I try to give a clear warning is in the hopes that it won't be necessary to actually use the sanctions. As to the American politics area, unfortunately, anything in that area (in modern times, hence post-1932) can turn into a mess at any time, so the sanctions are available if they become needed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. Doc talk 05:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 August 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

For your information

Hi Seraphimblade. Just a note to inform you, as the closing admin, that User:Monochrome Monitors one month voluntary topic ban has expired. I have left a note on the users talkpage confirming this and a re-summary of the mentorship terms. Thanks for your understanding in this matter. Regards Irondome (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
@Irondome: Thanks for letting me know, and for your willingness to do the mentorship. I hope things work out and that MM will be making no repeat visits to AE. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
As do I. Thanks all. :)--Monochrome_Monitor 01:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ching's Secret (2nd nomination)

Would you by any chance open so the nominator and I can analyze the sources? I certainly have comments regarding the analysis of the supposed sources. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 21:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: I don't reopen closed AfD discussions. I closed it explicitly as no prejudice against speedy renomination, so if you feel deletion is still warranted, you're welcome to file a new request. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:AE Length

Yes, I know it's over 500 words. But here is the thing - and I've tried to raise this issue before. It takes only a few words to make an accusation. It takes a lot more words to defend oneself against it. If I say "User Seraphimblade hates kittens, and here's a [diff that proves it]" that's under 500 words. But if my diff is provided out of context, or if it is presented in false context, then it will take you a lot more words to explain properly what is going on (this btw, is of course why in court the defense is given a lot more leeway in regard to testimony and statements than prosecution).

It's the old "let's accuse the guy of being a pig-fucker just to hear them deny it" strategy [1]. It's a lot easier to smear someone than it is for them to clear their name.

So I do feel like I have to defend myself against what are very bad faithed false accusations. I will try however to cut it down or hat it. Just give me a bit of time, it's busy here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: My apologies, I already tried to respond to this, but the edit apparently didn't go through. If you really do need a word limit extension to defend yourself properly, you can certainly make your case for that, and any reviewing admin can grant it. I tend to be sympathetic toward such a request, especially to direct parties against whom enforcement is recommended. But I do want to see you're at least thinking about it. Those of us who review requests there do have a limited amount of time to review these things, since we're all volunteers like everyone else, so we can't have everyone writing text walls several thousand words long. If there's a real need in an individual case, that's a different story. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, that's reasonable. I've been trying to cut it down bit by bit but because I've been busy (whoa, didn't mean to literate like that) I can do so only sporadically throughout the day. And yes I understand where the limit comes from, and I also remember the days when AE discussions threads always got out of control.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

List of Splinter Cell characters

Obviously the delete voters were numerically greater in the discussion, but I don't see any of them arguing anything that would supersede WP:ATD-M. Would you consider restoring it and redirecting as the last !voter argued? Jclemens (talk) 02:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jclemens: Is there material in it that you were interested in merging? Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Personally? No; never played the games nor read the books. BUT, if the content were left present under a redirect, someone else who might choose to do later can do so. If it remains deleted, no non-admin can see it to refine or work with in the future; it effectively ceases to exist. I don't see any indication anywhere that the content is problematic other than being deemed overly trivial--specifically no one suggests it may be copyvio, attack, or promotional--hence my request. Jclemens (talk) 04:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
If someone's actually interested in doing a merge, I'd certainly be happy to consider it. If we didn't delete things just due to a hypothetical possibility of a future merge, we wouldn't delete anything at all. The consensus was clearly for deletion in this case, even the single editor arguing to redirect didn't express any interest in merging anything. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Hillier Parker May and Rowden

It would be appreciated if you could provide some explanation, somewhere, for your "Delete" decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillier Parker May and Rowden. WP:GTD states "simply stating "delete" without any further comment is discouraged". This was, at the very least, a borderline case, and I consider that the arguments I placed in favour of "Keep" were fairly strong. It would be nice to see some evidence that you had actually read them. GrindtXX (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The advice at WP:GTD applies to commenting in discussions, not closing them. I generally don't provide a closing rationale by default unless the discussion is extremely contentious or consensus is unclear. That being said, I'll always provide it on request. In this case, every individual who argued to delete provided a reason for their position. After you posted what you did, several other editors directly addressed that, and were still of the opinion that the referencing was not adequate. Do keep in mind that it's not enough to have a lot of mentions, that's just reference bombing. Coverage must also be independent, from a reliable source, and reasonably in depth coverage directly about the article subject, not just a name drop or passing mention. Consensus clearly favored deletion in this case. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I stand corrected on WP:GTD, although it seems extraordinary that editors are encouraged to provide edit summaries for even quite minor edits, and yet an admin can delete an entire article without comment. Needless to say, I dispute your analysis that there was a clear consensus in favour of deletion. If you look at the timeline, you will see that my more substantive arguments of significant coverage in reliable sources were added (in the form of "Comments") after I had had a chance to look at print sources; and that, subsequently, only one pro-delete editor made any further comment. The article had also been considerably expanded, with references, by its main contributor, after most of the pro-delete votes had been cast. I further dispute that the sources I cited simply consisted of "passing mentions": Peter Scott, The Property Masters, unquestionably an independent reliable source, has 3–4 pages (pp. 40–43) dedicated to discussing the company and analysing its business data over the years 1922–37, in addition to other references elsewhere. I had no personal stake in this article (my only contribution was to add some wikilinks at one point), and I would be the first to admit that it needed further work, but the fundamental question of notability should never have been an issue. This was a bad call. GrindtXX (talk) 12:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry that you disagree. I've reread the discussion, and still find that it indicates a clear consensus in favor of deletion, and that several of those arguing for delete explicitly stated that they still believed the new referencing provided was insufficient. I didn't review the material myself, it's the closer's job to interpret the consensus of the discussion, not come to their own conclusion and cast a supervote. If you think I interpreted that consensus incorrectly, you are of course welcome to seek a deletion review. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to interrupt, but the user who created the page has asked for the page to be moved to draftspace. The request can be found at the Teahouse. -- Gestrid (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

History Lesson

I did some quick checking up on the editor who created Pedro Lambertini (the one who vandalized your user page), and it does appear that he translated that article from eswiki, as he claimed on, I believe, Talk:Pedro Lambertini. However, the only edits he did there were to the Spanish Wikipedia's version of the article. (See [2].) Also, his edits there were completely reverted (See [3].) because of their external links policy. He's also made edits to Wikidata concerning this article, though I'm not familiar enough with Wikidata to know what exactly he did, let alone what to do about that. I thought you'd like a history lesson if the user comes here after they're unblocked in a couple hours. I used this public SUL log to do the checking. Also, according to m:Special:CentralAuth/Ajusticiador, the account was created today on English Wikipedia. -- Gestrid (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, might be helpful to know. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Youndbuckerz

It's your call, but I would urge to reconsider this ban, unless there's been a history of problems with this user.

A single personal attack, which seems to have come from frustration with the way Wikipedia handles copyright issues. ( I used FFD, rather than F11, so they could explain that the images where in fact theirs, and it could be explained how this could be verified), doesn't to me warrant a 'disconnect this person' ban. I'm not seeing anything immediate in the contributions history to suggest a long-term issue. Maybe as an admin you see stuff a normal user doesn't?

When doing as much patrolling as I do, getting angry messages is whilst a minor annoyance not an immediate threat. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sfan00 IMG: The revision that I deleted was a threat, not just your garden variety nasty message (if it'd just been the "get fucked", I'd agree with you). Generally speaking, threats of violence are an immediate indef. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Whilst I understand your reasons and won't contest them , I would strongly suggest asking on WP:AN for a second view, even if it's a resounding confirmation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
They can still appeal in the normal fashion. I think for now, best to let them calm down, think it over, and hopefully be willing to address the issue. If that happens, I'd certainly be willing to consider unblocking at that point. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

"OE-lite" article was deleted?

Can you please provide me with information about the reason for the posted "OE-lite" article deletion. I understand the part that it shall not be promotion, fully accepted. But I followed the exact same tone and structure as the article of the "Yocto Project" uses (a "sister" projekt to OE-lite) and it was still deleted.

How shall I write an informal article about a Linux Build system for it to be accepted, if following the same patterns as already accepted articles still gets the article deleted?Mads.dore (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mads.dore: The Yocto Project one isn't in great shape, either, and I'll have to take a look at that, but it at least isn't promotional. The OE-Lite one was, with some language like: "...you will be able to specify and build your own custom embedded Linux distribution, for your custom embedded hardware platform." "...where customization and very specific requirements are more common than just needing a random blob of standard software packages.", "...without any corporate controlling the community." Bad grammar can be forgiven, but it inappropriately addresses the reader (we don't use "you"), and sounds like it came off of a brochure pushing the project. The way around this is to write in a neutral and formal tone (articles should not be informal), and to ensure to use only information published in reliable sources independent of the article subject, rather than using one's own knowledge or impressions. If a significant quantity of reliable and independent source material does not exist about this subject, we can't accept an article on it at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 August 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Request for undeletion

IIMB is an educational institute and IIMBx is a platform by IIMB. It is similar to MITx by MIT. Knowing the same, do reconsider the step taken and if possible undelete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naiya7 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Naiya7: That article didn't assert significance, and also read like a brochure for the program. Other stuff exists is not a rationale for an article being appropriate on something. If you'd like, I can restore it to your userspace to work on, but the promotional language and laundry list of programs needs toned down, "Dr." needs taken out (we don't use that, just the individual's name), and all article content needs to be supported by reliable references independent of the article subject. If a good amount of reference material like that doesn't exist, I'm afraid we can't accept an article on it at all. Let me know if you'd like it placed in a userspace sandbox. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I would definitely try to work on it such that it has significance for the readers and does not have promotional language. It would be great if the article is placed in userspace sandbox. Naiya7 (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It's now at User:Naiya7/IIMBx. Once you think it's ready to go to mainspace, there's a template at the top you can use to submit it for review. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

CSS Deletion Help

First up, respect for your role as admin. I recently spent a lot of time putting together an article about CSS Design Awards and thought I did a smashing job of making it factual and completely neutral. I went to great lengths to study the other award platform pages and make my article more concise and factual whereas others were missing citations and had promotional language. As someone who is beginning their journey to creating articles about topics I am qualified to write, I find this instant deletion rather perturbing. The G11 code appears to be for articles that are pure promotion however, this is absolutely not the case for this article and is the first of a series of articles I was planning to write to bring the genre of website awards up to date.

In the last five years there have been many changes in the web design world and as a creative director that has worked with many agencies and entered many awards, I can tell you with conviction that most of the award platforms on the website awards page are useless and practically defunct. The only awards of note are webbys, awwwards, fwa and css design awards.

Would you be so kind as to provide more specifics about which words or sentences are the cause for deletion? In your role as admin I'm sure you have seen it all but to new people with a genuine interest to help wikipedia (yes I have donated) and get involved, it would be very helpful to know what can be changed to allow articles to stay. Thanks for your consideration.Webdoctor001 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Webdoctor001: There's a ton of marketese in it. "...free inspiration platform..." (what does that even mean?), "...industry experts...", "...industry leaders...", "...widely recognized as a leading award platform...", "...widely regarded as a high achievement..." (just ref bombing several sources that discuss an award doesn't support "widely (recognized|regarded)"), "...to ensure quality standards...", and then "industry leaders" again and "notable agencies". That's all marketese fluff, and not appropriate for an article. The whole thing reads like a glossy brochure. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back. I think I see where you are coming from and am happy to re-write the article. Just need clarification though. Many of the terms I used are employed across the other award sites’ articles for example:

Awwwards: “It is widely regarded as the premier website competition to submit to” yet the articles it points to only barely mentions them as a place to find inspiration. In this way they are identical to the articles I found on CSSDA. Are these not ref bombing several sources that discuss an award also. In fact, all of the awards have the same style of reference articles and one of the articles for Awwwards also mentions CSSDA in the same piece.

Awwwards: “The expert panel…”, “featuring influential speakers…”, “include executives and thought leaders…”. Thought leaders?

Web Awards: “sets the standard of excellence…”, “defining benchmarks based on the seven essential criteria…”, “some of the most effective websites…”, “a special distinction that signifies the best of the best…”

And so on. I hope you can see why my article was written with these terms. I assumed (incorrectly) that they were acceptable and neutral.

Like I said I am happy to create the article again and re-write it. Would the following changes be acceptable? “Industry experts and leaders” to “industry professionals”. “Free inspiration platform” refers to the fact that they did not charge a fee for submission back then but I guess this can be removed. “Notable agencies” is a tough one to replace as is “widely regarded/recognized” as these are factual and again, employed throughout the other award platforms’ articles. How else does one say this?

On one hand it seems that article writers need to justify what makes the subject of the article notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, yet the terms to describe their notability can be seen as promotion. It’s a tough line to walk and any insight you can give would be appreciated to make this article better and for future articles. Thank you.Webdoctor001 (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, you are right on that. And yeah, we probably are especially sensitive on company articles, you can imagine the volume of spam we get given that a Wikipedia article is likely to be in the top three search results (if not the top search result) when someone punches that company's name into Google. I think the best thing you could do is be more specific. Not in terms of a laundry list of everyone they've gone to, everyone involved with them, etc., but when you say they're "considered to be...", considered so by whom? What was their reasoning behind that? Similarly, in terms of the history, if you have good sourced material on what was done and why, and can prevent that in a neutral way, that can work a good deal better. If they supposedly have a significant impact, who said that? What was the impact they thought they had? If you can stick to demonstrably factual information, and put that together in a coherent narrative, rather than relying a lot on "Everyone says this thing is awesome!", it helps a lot. The piece we have written on weasel words might give some idea—use indefinite terms like "Many say..." or "It is widely believed..." very sparingly if at all, and only if there's a strong consensus among good sources that something is in fact widely believed. Since it wasn't too over the top, I can restore it as a userspace draft for you if you want, let me know if you'd be interested in that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Pasadena Recovery Center

Hello, you previously deleted the Pasadena Recovery Center page I had posted. I have new content which I'm hoping falls under Wikipedia's guidelines. Should I just try to create the page again? Please let me know how to proceed. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Incredibleshane (talk • contribs) 16:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Incredibleshane: I note that in one of your edits, you noted that you'd been "asked" to edit an article. If you are being paid or compensated in any way to edit Wikipedia (including if you are expected to do so as part of your duties of employment), that practice is not absolutely forbidden, but there are some disclosures that are mandatory per our Terms of Use if this is the case. You can find the details here. If you are being compensated, you must make those disclosures prior to making any more edits regarding any subjects for which you receive compensation. There's also some advice here for editors who may have a conflict of interest, whether that's financial or otherwise.

Once that's taken care of if need be, if you only "hope" that the article meets policies, you should probably write it as a draft, at Draft:Pasadena Recovery Center. Once you think it's ready, you can submit it for review by an experienced editor, who will either move it to mainspace or call your attention to any issues that need to be addressed first. Even in draft space, article content may not be promotional. If you're referring to the later version you put on the article talk page, it's a bit better, but it still has problems, like "Dr." (we don't use titles, it would just be "Bloom" after the first mention), glossy brochure language like "...comprehensive 12-step based treatment program that can be tailored to each individual patient" and "The goal of the residential program is to reintroduce individuals into society with the skills they need to remain sober and live productive lives", and no references. No adjective overload, no marketese. Generally speaking, articles should stick to facts (or attribute opinions to their source, not present them "in Wikipedia's voice"), stay away from unneeded and overly positive adjectives (saying a company sells widgets is enough to present the fact, we don't need to throw in "high-quality widgets"), and have only content supported and verified in reliable sources, primarily references written by people having no interest in or affiliation with the article subject.

So, those should give you a couple of things to start with. Let me know if you have any questions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Teach for the Philippines, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Filipino. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Angie Craig

The article you deleted by CSD G11 has been recreated. I tried to put a CSD G4 on it, but that doesn't seem to cover speedy and proposed deletions, only discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: That is correct. G4 applies only to identical or near-identical recreations of pages that were deleted at XfD. It doesn't cover articles that were speedied or prodded, nor does it cover rewrites that are substantially different. If you still feel the new version should be deleted, you can of course nominate it for deletion in the appropriate fashion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Odd that something speedied and immediately recreated wouldn't be eligible to be speedied again. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Does it matter that it was the page's original creator who recreated it? That user recreated it with the speedy deletion tag in place, so it seems like it could be speedily deleted again shortly. I'm confused though, because speedy deletions don't seem to carry any weight if article creators can just recreate an article immediately after it has been deleted. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah that's my confusion, too. For now I'll await another admin to delete it as CSD G11. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
It could be speedied again, if the new version still meets a speedy criterion. If a page is deleted as G11, and is recreated and is still blatantly promotional, it can be G11d again. If it's not promotional but is now a copyvio, it could be done under G12, and so on, and so on. It just doesn't qualify as a G4. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm the one who created and recreated the article. Would you Seraphimblade, mind explaining a little how you come to the conclusion that an article is "unambiguously advertising or promotion"? I would have thought that a fortune 500 executive running for a federal office in a campaign described by 3rd party sources as "one of the most watched" and "competitive" would qualify as notable. (See here ) --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
It's a campaign brochure. First, it's a quote farm, and quotes shouldn't be used to finish prose sentences like that, especially not as frequently as it happens there. An example: "Minnesota Roundtable lists her activities as serving on the "boards of the St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce, LifeScience Alley and the Twin Cities American Heart Association, as well as chairwoman of the Twin Cities Go Red campaign" and a member of the Rotary club in Eagan." That can be done in a factual sentence without needing the quote, and often direct quotes contain fluff that can be excised in a paraphrase. Some other problematic portions are editorials: "..."college affordability" and other measures to help the middle class" is an example. We don't editorialize on whether a policy would be helpful. There might be enough references to create a new version, but please summarize, and tone down the quote farming and editorializing. Given that the race and the closeness of it seem to be the primary topic of coverage, the article should probably also reflect that, and be a little less heavy on personal material about her. Since it might be a decent article subject, though, I'd be willing to give you the previous copy in a sandbox if you'd like to take a go. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd be happy to give it a go. The idea behind the quotes was to make it clear where the information came from since it does put her in a good light. I originally had her campaign themes in quotes for the same reason. BTW, wouldn't have been better to put something like "trim these quotes and be a little less heavy on personal material or the article gets deleted", on the talk page? --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Restored to User:BoogaLouie/Angie Craig. As to the rest of it, I really wish there were time for that. Unfortunately, G11 has always been a busy category, and since the VisualEditor was introduced, it's gotten even worse since it's so easy to write an ad now. And you can imagine that a lot of them right now are campaign brochures for political campaigns. There's just too much of it, and while you'd have probably taken heed, the vast majority of these are done on a drive-by basis. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Request for Undeletion

I would kindly like to request that you undeleted the DataCore wikipedia page. The page was being worked on by multiple editors, with a lot of work done on the page. There are alot of references for the page. I believe the page becoming un-promotional could have been fixed in the talk section of the page instead of it being deleted, as the page was not very lengthy. I also believe a competitor of the company has requested that it be deleted. According to G11 wikipedia guidelines: If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. Note: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion." Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:58B:100:4B0B:530:E307:1864:3F37 (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not undelete advertisements, and I don't really care who requested the deletion. If the article hadn't been promotional, no one could have successfully requested its deletion on those grounds, and if it is promotional, I don't care one bit who calls attention to that or why, we delete ads on sight. You are welcome to work on the draft article; hopefully it will be in better shape and get approved. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Understandable. But the article has notability and is not pure advertisement and therefore could have been plausibly replaced with text that complies with a NPOV rather than be deleted. Hopefully we can all come to an agreement here on what is promotional and what is not. But the subject has notability, do you agree on this?

No idea really, I wasn't evaluating it for notability, and G11 can apply even if the article's subject is unquestionably notable. The AfC reviewer will evaluate that once the draft is submitted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The subject is indeed unquestionably notable, therefore could have been fixed via the talk page. The page has verifiable references for content. Seems as if new draft publishing is well behind and has 649 articles to be evaluated before this one is considered. That is why I figured it would be easier on everyone to ask you for undeletion of the page so that it can be fixed via talk and plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view. 2601:58B:100:4B0B:A0FA:8E04:E366:7DC3 (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I thought my previous answer was a pretty clear no. So please let me reiterate: No. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that great discussion. I would think as an administrator you should at least clarify what you found promotional about the article, why you decided to jump to this conclusion and be a little more respectful to other wikipedia users. I will request a deletion review, if you would not like to discuss with me, because clearly you don't.

You didn't ask what was promotional about the article. But, since you now have, the whole thing read like a tech brochure (and God only knows I see enough of the damn things to know). But, here's a whole paragraph, that goes over why their stuff really really really is the best, even though they withdrew the result. (Also, it's a safe wager any article using the word "leverages" and is not about principles of simple machines is going to be an ad. Right up there with "synergy" and "solutions".):

"DataCore Parallel I/O was launched in 2015, that leverages multi-core processors to work in parallel to accelerate the performance of multiple input and output operations at the same time.[16][17][18] DataCore running Parallel I/O software on their SANsymphony system recorded $0.08/IOPS on a system which was one sixth cost of its competitors with the average response time of 0.32ms.[19] A few months later, however, one of DataCore's results was withdrawn from the SPC top winners chart after, as Chris Mellor writes, "someone, possibly a competitor, went over the results with a microscope [and] they noticed there was no UPS." As the article points out, this had no affect on the actual performance results but does change the final cost of the system. [20][21] Although all SPC-1 results are independently reviewed and accepted by SPC, some[who?] have cried foul about the way DataCore ran the benchmark. [22]" Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I guess a better word for leverages would be "uses" multi-core processors? I mean, this is a description of the technology with references. Also those results recorded by DataCore are significant results and a fact that can be proven and were recorded by the SPC-1 council, not for promotion but for description of the software. (see references). And yes the results were contested (NPOV). And if you found this paragraph to be promotional, then the paragraph itself should have been deleted (or edited in the talk page), but other things about the company are notable and not promotional in my opinion. That is why multiple admins were working to get the article to a consensus NPOV. That is the whole goal here, to have information that is valuable to readers. But deleting the article in my opinion is not valuable to anyone. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. 2601:58B:100:4B0B:A0FA:8E04:E366:7DC3 (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
So you have been deleted two times under DataCore Software name and at least three times under DataCore Software Corporation name few years ago. When I say you I actually mean DataCore because your IP clearly traces back where you are. One question so far... Are you guys trying to break sort of a record? Why do we need to focus on getting away with a spam? Thanks! NISMO1968 (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Sara Arjun

Hello. On 23 August, you speedy-deleted G11 Sara Arjun. I would like to know if you consider this was a mistake on your part, or if you stand by your decision. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 02:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It would be very difficult to delete an article by mistake, as it takes several clicks and confirmations. The article was promotional, and deleted as such. We don't allow CVs. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Looks like it's at AfD now. The article is reference bombed with a large list of reference, most of which don't even mention the article subject at all, which is generally a big red flag for spam. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Are you aware that WP:SPEEDY is "an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow" and that it "is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion"? Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 03:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not playing Twenty Questions with you, especially when they seem rhetorical. If you have a point, get to it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

DataCore software

OK, so DataCore guys lost G11 arbitration but they decided they want to get back under different name DataCore software with a lower-case "s" for "software". Neat! NISMO1968 (talk) 03:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Already taken care of, it would appear. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Protect user pages by default

A request for comment is available on protecting user pages by default from edits by anonymous and new users. I am notifying you because you commented on this proposal when it was either in idea or draft form. Funcrunch (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 18

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 18, June–July 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi, Samwalton9, UY Scuti, and Sadads

  • New donations - Edinburgh University Press, American Psychological Association, Nomos (a German-language database), and more!
  • Spotlight: GLAM and Wikidata
  • TWL attends and presents at International Federation of Library Associations conference, meets with Association of Research Libraries
  • OCLC wins grant to train librarians on Wikimedia contribution

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

BCT deletion

Ciao mi chiamo Massimo Biancini. I contribute to Italian Wikipedia since 2008 and I have relied on my experience to write the page on BCT. But surely not enough. If you had not read the message I wrote yesterday I'll summarize below: "I'm a Italian punk and wrote the page on the BCT to help the search for experts and fans. BCT is a label that is no longer active since 1986. I have indicated the company that distributes their tapes to facilitate the research of experts, not for commercial purposes: the tapes are sold at cost price, but i can remove the reference. In Italy has recently released a documentary about Italian punk ITALIAN HARDCORE PUNK 1980-1989 (2015) where it thanks the BCT for making a bridge between the European and American punk: Italy, Sweden, Finland, ecc. Can you help me fix this page to be able to republish?(Massimoimpulse (talk) 09:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)).

@Massimoimpulse: I'm not familiar with how the Italian Wikipedia does things. I can tell you that the article had a quote above it, "Punk scratches an itch that isn't found else where!". Not okay. We stick to factual information, not cutesy quotes. Secondly, an exhaustive "catalog" listing does not work. Wikipedia is not a catalog. I also don't know about the Italian Wikipedia's inclusion standards, but one of our primary ones is notability. This means in practice that the subject of an article must have been the subject of substantial coverage from sources that meet the criteria for reliability and don't have an interest in promoting it. If such reference material is available about this subject, it's possible an appropriate article could be written about it. If not, I'm afraid we won't be able to accept any article on it at all. You may want to consider using a draft rather than directly submitting to mainspace, but even in draft space, articles must not be promotional. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Asha for Education Deletion

Hello - You deleted the page for Asha for Education (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asha_for_Education) and labeled it Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Can you please explain why? Asha for Education is a recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit registered within the United States and all information on the page was very in line with wiki pages for other similar large non profits (See pages for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make-A-Wish_Foundation and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation). Can you please explain what about the page is "promotional"? Also, if the page needs to be edited to provide references, the organization is able to provide references for all information. Can you please undelete? We could have discussed this on the talk page instead of deleting the page all together. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taraad (talk • contribs) 18:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Taraad: Generally speaking, neither the organization nor anyone affiliated with it should be creating or editing an article about it. Please see our guidelines on conflict of interest, and also the mandatory disclosures if you are paid or employed to edit Wikipedia, or are expected to do so as a duty of employment. As to promotion, one need look no farther than the first line: "Asha for Education ("Asha") is a 100% volunteer-run registered 501(c)3 non-profit organization based in the United States. Asha is dedicated to bringing socio-economic change in India by focusing on basic education, in the belief that education is a critical requisite for socio-economic change." Nonprofits can have promotional material written about them just as easily as for-profit organizations can. Articles must be strictly neutral. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to answer your question about undeletion. No, I do not undelete advertisements. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade:Still unable to see what is the ad part when they are clearly a non-profit with no employees, only volunteers. Can you please clarify how you came to conclusion that someone associated with the organization has created/edited it? The copied sentence is their mission statement and seems perfectly neutral as far as I have researched about the organization
The whole page is full of promotional material. Promotional has nothing, nothing whatsoever, to do with whether the institution is for profit or not, so while I believe you that it's a nonprofit, continuing to repeat that is not helpful and doesn't solve the issue. "X is the best charity in the world! Donate here!" is still promotional material. The Asha article, realistically, isn't far off. We'd never uncritically copy in a "mission statement", as those are almost always promotional. From there, the article is full of external links (we link once to the organization's main web site in the "External links" section after an article, not repeatedly throughout it). From there, "These young people shared the belief that education is a critical requisite and an effective catalyst for social and economic change in India. The group was named "Asha" (from the Sanskrit āśā, "hope") to represent the hope that had brought these individuals together and the hope that they aimed to bring into the lives of children in India. In that summer of 1991, Asha was born at the University of California, Berkeley." "Was formed", not purple crap like "was born". And the stuff about "hope" is totally unneeded fluff, just stating that "Asha" means "hope" would suffice to convey the relevant information. "Volunteers in each of these chapters take personal interest in identifying education-related projects in India, and supporting them through funds and other means." According to whom? Unreferenced fluff. "Team Asha is a sports program organized by Asha for Education (Asha) that gives the chance to individuals of all ages to discover the magical benefits of physical activities like running and biking including but not limited to an active and healthy lifestyle." "...discover the magical"...no, no, no, and if you can't see how that's unacceptable, well, there's no helping. Articles must be strictly neutral in tone, this whole article sounds like a brochure put out by the organization. The list I gave is hardly exhaustive, the whole thing is full of fluff like the examples I gave. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Withdrawal of mentorship

Hi Seraphimblade. Unfortunately the mentoring arrangement that was negotiated at AE between myself and User:Monochrome Monitor has proven unworkable, primarily due to the mentoree disregarding the core aspects of the agreement. I feel therefore that it is pointless to continue my efforts. I am informing you that regretfully, I cannot continue to attempt to assist this colleague. Regards, and thanks for your original close. Irondome (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that's the case, but appreciate you letting me know. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
An update, S. There is a fairly substantial discussion ongoing on MM's talkpage. The issue is whether the present mentoring model is suited to the colleague's temperament, and also the duration of any re-agreed arrangement. Apologise for any confusion, but this is an evolving discussion and I feel it is critical to keep you in the picture. The situation is complex and perhaps handicapped by previous misunderstandings. However, there has been a significant lack of co-operation in informing me of current editing plans from my mentoree, which is potentially dangerous should any dramah erupt of which I was not aware due to being out of the loop. This may be due to a lack of understanding of my requirements from the outset. I will keep you posted. Simon. Irondome (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Zoe Adelle Clark-Coates (again)

Can you explain why you closed this AfD as "delete" with no further comment? Obviously I couldn't close it, but if I had I would have done so as "no consensus". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The "keep" arguments were rather wavering, and leaning toward a merge (which, by the end of the discussion, was of course no longer possible since the proposed target was itself deleted). None of them addressed or refuted the central argument for deletion, that being that there wasn't sufficient reference material available to sustain the article, and that what did exist was weak and not in sufficient depth. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
We'll have to agree to disagree. I sigh when people tell me they won't edit Wikipedia because it's scary and hostile :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 September 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Param Sant Bahadur Chand (Vakil Sahib Ji)

Hi you have deleted a page called " Param Sant Bahadur Chand (Vakil Sahib Ji)"

I would like to highlight that he is a mystic / saint and a param sant in India. A successor of

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawan_Singh

There have been many branches of radha soami faith across the world and many furhter guru's even on wikipedia.

There are millions of followers of this guru and hence like the other guru's are on wiki even our guru needs to be there.

I can list out atleast 50 more guru's with similar radha soami faith which wiki is allowing.

Request you to pls have this page uploaded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justpk (talk • contribs) 16:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The article was deleted for being promotional. You have not addressed that. Other stuff exists is never a reason to retain an article, it is entirely possible that some of those people would be suitable for articles and some not. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

==

How can stating the facts about a saint is promotional? There is nothing up for sale, or marketing. Jesus, Moses, Krishna all were saints and lords of their time and mentioned similarly the saints of our times are mentioned too.

You need to prove how this is promotional matter when mention of Sai Baba, Swami Vivek Anand and others is not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justpk (talk • contribs) 04:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

"He was in search of that thing which could bring a current flowing inside his body to outside." Pure fluff. "Vakil Bahadur Chand Ji liked that book and understood that it was impossible to find the real path to reach God without a living Guru." We do not state religious claims as though they were true, we present them as asserted by the religion. "His memory was sharp and he also remembered all the Bachans of Param Sant Manager Sahib Ji and whenever he narrates them in any satsang the people feel Param Sant Manager Sahib Ji’s presence amongst them." Same again. We do not fill articles with unreferenced fluff, we write them only from material published in reliable sources independent of the subject. The entire article is a religious puff piece. Promotion isn't only of companies, we do not allow promotion of anyone or anything, including gurus and religions. This article promoted said guru, and was not neutral. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
sure understood. then you should highlight it in such way rather than saying its 'promotional material'. will see how it can be re-written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justpk (talk • contribs) 05:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
@Justpk: No, that's not what I should have done. We delete advertisements and promotional material, we do not "highlight" it. In order to write any article about that subject, it will need to pass the notability criteria, that being that the article subject has been extensively covered in reliable sources independent of and not having an interest in it. If such reference material is available, stick to writing only from the references, not from personal knowledge. If it is not, we cannot accept an article on the subject at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete old clip, please?

Can you delete the old clip at File:Clip_breeding-foaling-A_Celebration_of_Horses.webmhd.webm, and leave the last one I uploaded which is a few seconds longer to accommodate for a smoother segue into the breeding? Thank you. Atsme📞📧 02:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Atsme: Yep, done. Remember to update the nonfree image rationale in that one too. I think the existing rationale would work pretty much as is, if you just change it from horse breeding to the Sultan article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

CU Request

Would appreciate your thoughts on a check user request I have made at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thedoubleunit given your comments at User talk:Thedoubleunit2016. Hiding T 13:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Done. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News

Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News

Hello everyone, and welcome to the September 2016 GOCE newsletter.

>>> Sign up for the September Drive, already in progress! <<<

July Drive: The July drive was a roaring success. We set out to remove April, May, and June 2015 from our backlog (our 149 oldest articles), and by 23 July, we were done with those months. We added July 2015 (66 articles) and copy-edited 37 of those. We also handled all of the remaining Requests from June 2016. Well done! Overall, we recorded copy edits to 240 articles by 20 editors, reducing our total backlog to 13 months and 1,656 articles, the second-lowest month-end total ever.

August Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 21 through 27 August; the theme was sports-related articles in honor of the 2016 Summer Olympics. Of the eight editors who signed up, five editors removed 11 articles from the backlog. A quiet blitz – everyone must be on vacation. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all editors who took part.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdlsk.

>>> Sign up for the September Drive! <<<

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

International_Center_for_Numerical_Methods_in_Engineering page

Dear editor Seraphimblade ,

I have been trying to edit the page International_Center_for_Numerical_Methods_in_Engineering twice, but has been deleted: (multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G11 ). I am from communications department of the center and we wanted to update and add more information about it.

Now, the page does not exist and we prefer to recover the version created by Wikipedia to be removed... We also suggest some changes (if possible) ... The images do not match exactly... We suggest these two:

File:Sede-cimne.jpg File:B0_Building.jpg

Thanks in advance for you attention,

Lbermudezcimne (talk) 09:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)Laura Bermúdez CIMNE. Communications dept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbermudezcimne (talk • contribs) 09:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Lbermudezcimne: So, first things first. It sounds like you're being paid to edit in this capacity, or are doing so as part of your employment duties. That being the case, there are some mandatory disclosures. You also should take a look at our advice on editing with a conflict of interest, and our requirements for neutrality and referencing and verifiability.

Referencing really is required, it's a crucial part of maintaining neutrality. If significant amounts of independent and reliable reference material are available about this organization, the article should be written primarily from that material, and stick only to what the sources say. "Independent" in this case means published by someone who does not have an interest in promoting the organization (so nothing self-published, no press releases, etc.), and "reliable" means published by an organization with a reputation for fact-checking, editorial control, and accuracy (so no blogs, etc.).

Your draft is still very promotional, and will be deleted for that reason. First off, we use bold once in an article—the first mention of the article subject's name is bolded. We don't bold for emphasis. The pictures are much too large, they should be standard thumbnail size. Readers can click to see a larger version, but this is an encyclopedia article, not an ad brochure. And many problems in language, some examples: "...a fruitful international expansion..." We don't throw in stuff like "fruitful", we stick to facts. "The knowledge transfer, the dissemination and the application of numerical methods in engineering are the goals of the center that develops numerical methods and computational techniques for advancing knowledge and technology in engineering (civil, mechanic, environmental, naval, marine, bio-medical engineering, offshore...) and in applied sciences. The research and technology development activities (RTD) of CIMNE cover a wide spectrum of topics, so the center has taken part in over 2,000 RTD projects in cooperation with some 500 companies, universities and research centers worldwide." That doesn't provide any actual information at all, it's just PR fluff. "CIMNE has a vocation for transferring the scientific and technical outputs from RTD projects to the industrial sector." Says who? How so? Again, no informational content, just fluff. So anyway, I've now deleted that. And no, I will not be undeleting the previous advertisement either, I do not undelete promotional material. If we are to have an article on this subject, it must be strictly neutral in both content and tone, and information in it must be from reliable published references. If significant amounts of reliable and independent reference material do not exist about this organization, we'd be unable to accept an article on it at all. But one trick I often offer people with a conflict of interest is to run any proposed article past your PR department. If they love it, we'll likely delete it. If they tell you it's dry and boring and needs to "pop" more, you're probably on the right track. We don't permit advertising, marketing, "copy", or PR. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Seraphimblade thanks for your contribution! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letsgit (talk • contribs) 06:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Rushden and Diamonds

Hi Seraphimblade. I'm wanting to begin working on an article for Rushden & Diamonds (music group) in which it states you had previously deleted the last version of. As I am wanting to take on the responsibility of accurately writing an article for this band in conjunction with the albums in their discography, is there anything you can suggest for me to ensure my writing for this article is up to Wikipedia's standards? Thank you. - Dean TrotterYlonde (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ylonde: So, a few issues here. First, there seems to be a campaign going on regarding articles of this type. If you are being paid, compensated, or asked as part of your employment duties to edit these articles, there are some mandatory disclosures in regards to that. Second, I notice that several editors have already been blocked in regards to this. I suspect that you may be one of them or are at least closely related to that. In that case, you would need to request that the previous account be unblocked, not just create a new one. Finally, articles must be written primarily from material found in sources independent of the article subject (not having an interest in promoting it) and those references must be reliable. If significant amounts of reliable source material don't exist about a subject, we can't accept an article on that subject at all. First please take care of making any required disclosures and issues with any old account, and then we can examine if an article about that subject would be appropriate. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Seraphimblade, just to set the record straight, I am absolutely not being paid, compensated, or asked as part of any kind of employment duties to edit any articles whatsoever. In regards to your comment requesting that a previous account be unblocked, as this is my very first account on Wikipedia will it be necessary to have any previous accounts associated with this article unblocked that I am not affiliated with? As a writer and student of Canadian music I am personally wanting to contribute an article on this subject as well as it's affiliations. Prior to spotting that the subject had been removed I was going to volunteer my time to fixing it's errors. With all this said, please let me know how you would like me to proceed and if any other information is needing to be provided prior to moving forward with the development of this article. Thank you for your guidance and working with me on developing a successful entry.Ylonde (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ylonde: I much appreciate you clearing that up. And so no, there's nothing else you need do in that case. I certainly hope you'll do better than the spammers. What I would suggest doing is to start a draft article, and see what type of reference material you can locate about the band. If you can find something good, the draft will serve as a good place to keep track of those references and the information you can get from them. If it turns out you can't find enough material for an article, you can just leave the draft alone, and eventually it'll get deleted as a part of normal maintenance. Once you've done that, feel free to ping me and I'd be happy to offer some advice. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you again for all of the helpful suggestions @Seraphimblade. I'll be making sure to take you up on any further advice needed during the development of the article. Much appreciated.Ylonde (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Highland Technology

Hi Seraphimblade, I see that you deleted Highland Technology that I CSD tagged. I got a message from the article creator to see if the updated article is acceptable. I created a subpage User:Elcorcor/Highland Technology for the user to keep working on the article. Would it be possible to undelete the article and move it over to User:Elcorcor/Highland Technology so they can work on it? Thanks in advance. -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@LuK3: Afraid not. It's not my general policy to undelete ads, but that one also had copyright problems, so it cannot be restored anywhere on Wikipedia. They're welcome to use the draft to give it another go. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I didn't know it was a copyvio, thanks for letting me know. I'll pass along the info. -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

speedy deletion of Liam Young

Hello, I have been beginning to make edits around the pages and fields of speculative deign and critical design. I am a student of this field and have been trying to keep expanding this area and adding its key protagonists as well as projects and publications. I have created some pages and made edits on others. I was just checking in about how I could make this page better so it doesnt get deleted next time. Is it possible to get the draft of what was posted so that I can further rewrite it and edit it to conform with guidelines. Any advice you have on who to improve it would also be welcome. thanks for your help. Jamesrawson79 (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The issue with the Liam Young article, the last time around, is that it was promotional. There were several reasons why. First, it had tons of offsite links to his stuff. We would generally have one offsite link, to a subject's official site, if they have one. It would go in the "External links" section at the end of the article. If the subject doesn't have an official site per se, a link to something like one official social media profile or something they're well known for would generally also be acceptable. We don't do tons of them, and they don't go in the article, with the exception of links to a reference within the reference tag.
Also, there were issues with neutrality of tone. On first reference to a person in an article, we use their first name. To maintain a formal tone, thereafter, we use their last name only (so "Young", not "Liam", that tone's too familiar and informal). "...produced from our technology...". Avoid second person or directly addressing the reader, the sentence there would make sense with "our" taken entirely out. But one of the main problems was that after the lead, it was just a listing of stuff he's done, stuff he's written, and interviews he's done. That's more of a CV than a biography.
At this time, we've now had to delete five pages at that title, though not all of them seem to be about the same Liam Young. All the same, though, that's about the point of enough is enough, so I've protected the page. That doesn't mean we can't ever have an article there, though. If you can write a draft article (could be done at Draft:Liam Young or in your userspace sandbox, whichever you prefer) and get it approved by articles for creation, I'd certainly be happy to unprotect at that point so the draft could be moved in (or if the reviewer is an admin, they can do it). But at this point, I think we really need to have an experienced editor review anything that might go there before it does. You'll need to see if there's a substantial amount of independent and reliable source material. "Independent" means written by someone not affiliated with the subject, so that rules out press releases, interviews, and so on, as well as self-published material or things written by partners or associates. Most of the content in the article should come from those references—if no one else has taken much notice of something, it's likely we'd be giving it undue weight by putting much emphasis on it. And of course, if there just isn't very much solid reference material available about him, we couldn't accept an article on him at all. Good reference material is crucial for maintaining neutrality. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Seraphimblade, thanks for the response, that is all very clear. Is it possible to retrieve the draft of what was deleted so that I can work from that as a base? the Draft:Liam Young page is actually for a different Liam Young, as you mention there were a number of attempts for different people of the same name. Can I set up an alternate somehow and from there submit it for review? Thanks again.Jamesrawson79 (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not undelete promotional material. Please feel free to have a go at a version that is not, though. As to a draft, you could disambiguate it somehow (such as Draft:Liam Young (specifier)), replacing "specifier" with some appropriate short description, or work on it in your userspace. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Wind and Fire

Can you please provide a detailed explanation of your deletion of Wind and Fire? I find it curious that the same editor has targeted this page multiple times, despite it being published for several weeks with no opposition from any other user. --Baselineace (talk) 01:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Baselineace: Not sure why you're surprised. "Wind & Fire Jewelry is made in the U.S.A. of nickel-free, recycled and reclaimed materials, lacquered with either an Antique Gold, Antique Silver or Rose Gold finish." That's straight out of a sales brochure. "With hundreds of recognizable icons, every design symbolizes a facet of the wearer’s persona and inner spirit." Just, no. If you can't see how that's promotional and totally unacceptable, not much else I can tell you. So it's not a question of "targeted", it's a question of someone noticing it's promotional and flagging it as such. Articles must be strictly neutral in both tone and content. Also, please do keep in mind that if you are being paid, compensated, or employed to edit regarding this subject or any other, there are some mandatory disclosures to make first. Please take care of any such disclosures that would apply to you before making future edits. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: How is that promotional if it is quoted from an independent third-party source? It did not come out of a sales brochure as you suggested. I spent many hours creating this page and do not understand why if there was only a couple issues why they were not edited? There was no reason to delete this page without an appropriate arbitration. Is it commonplace to delete an article immediately before I or anyone else had the chance to oppose? This article was online for several weeks and out of the clear blue deleted without any reasonable warning.--Baselineace (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
You don't need to ping me on my own talk page, I get notified of messages on it. First, yes, we have criteria for speedy deletion. Criterion G11 covers promotion and advertising. Yes, to discourage spammers, we delete promotional material on-sight and immediately. As to the text in question, I obviously do not mean it literally came out of a sales brochure, I mean that's the tone of it. And there weren't only "a couple issues", those were the couple I used as examples. So let's look at the rest and your references. From the first piece I quoted, here is all the cited reference says about it: "...including Wind & Fire jewelry, which is made in the USA from recycled brass." If you'd said "The jewelry is made from recycled brass" based on that, that would've been accurately reflecting the source and non-promotional. But throwing in "Nickel-free! Recycled! Reclaimed!" buzzwords and "Oh and here's what you can order it with!" is promotional, and no, that is not just neutrally and accurately reflecting the source. Stick to the facts the source actually confirms. And try to find references that have more than half a sentence on the article subject, we really need sources that are entirely or mainly about it, not that mention it in passing. An Amazon sales link is not an appropriate "reference", that's spam too. We'd need someone who's actually written about their sales, not just a directory entry. "Gift industry publication Giftbeat ranked Wind & Fire #1 in the Northeast region in this category." "Giftbeat" is an industry publication, and not a very notable one from the looks of it, so there's really no need to throw that in there. We don't do a laundry list of every time someone's said something nice about them, it has to be someone or something relatively notable and high-profile saying it. Be very careful of industry publications in general, too—they vary a lot in quality and fact-checking. Unless you have one that's pretty reputable and known to be good, we generally ought to be very, very cautious of using those. And then your charity link is not a reliable source, and it's a page promoting them too. You'd need to stick to independent and reliable source material, that is, material written by an organization with a good reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, and stick to covering what they cover in a neutral fashion. Even if they use language that's not terribly neutral, you would need to paraphrase it into something neutral and appropriate, not just adopt their tone. If sufficient in-depth, reliable, independent reference material like that doesn't exist about this company, we cannot accept an article on it at all, that is required, since it is necessary to maintain neutrality. Is that clearer now? Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Re any other place

Per WP:BANEX saying "asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban" and "appealing the ban" were okay, APM said to let them know if I had questions, so I figured that meant that was an acceptable first place to go about narrowing scope.

I have no immediate intentions of trying to get the entire topic ban dismissed, just narrowed to cover the company to which all objections pertained, as opposed to the entire industry and all redirects. Ranze (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ranze: I was discussing appeals, specifically. Yes, asking the administrator who imposed a sanction for clarifications on it is another exception and you can do that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hrayr Shahinian

Hrayr Shahinian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello Seraphimblade, I do not understand why you deleted my post and need to "protect Hrayr Shahinian". (BLP) It is obvious that someone in his circle made his wikipedia article, (who in the world would spend hours posting every single published article or chapter of a book, otherwise??? Boredom ensues) as it read completely like an advertisement. I've been trying to trim it down and stick to facts. If someone has his license revoked, and it is verifiable and a matter of public record, then that's a fact that the public deserves access. Thanks for your time. Ck1jc4 (talk) 11:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)ck1jc4

@Ck1jc4: I would protect the subject of that article under BLP for the same reason as we protect any article subject under BLP. Our articles on living people, due to their high profile in search results, can do real harm to real people, so we are always cautious and conservative with them. Some of the negative material in the BLP was "referenced" to primary sources like court records, which is inappropriate. We don't go digging through and interpreting court records for material to put into a BLP. That's not only for concerns about potential original research with the editor interpreting them, though that is a concern (legalese is notoriously hard to read and interpret, and slight differences in wording or even punctuation can mean substantial differences that a non-lawyer might miss), but also concerns about due weight—if no other source saw this as something significant enough to cover, why should we then do so? If high-quality reliable references actually did cover that court case, they could be used for material about it, though still of course with proper concerns about due weight. I do agree with you that the laundry list of publications was also inappropriate, and you'll note those have been removed too. For the moment, I've just stubbed it down to the one well known fact about him, and hopefully the article can grow from there in a much better and much more BLP-compliant way. I'll also be checking if he's actually notable at all—when I searched for references, I had an awfully rough time finding anything much that did more than mention him in passing. But maybe there's something out there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't feel his revocation is obscure information. But, at any rate, the article is scrubbed clean now, and hopefully a more neutral, less commercial page will develop.

Thanks for responding, Ck1jc4 (talk) 17:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)ck1jc4

Blueair air purifiers

Hi, I am writing on behalf of Blueair, a Swedish maker of indoor air cleaning technologies that remove most known contaminants such as chemicals, dust particles and gases, who you deleted in mid-August. I wonder if you could kindly provide me the reasons for the deletion and to discover what we need to do to get you to reconsider your action. Unfortunately, responsibility for the page was improperly left to a member of our staff who was not aware of the processes involved in responding to requests for action. Kind regards, Dave (12.216.22.2 (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)) --12.216.22.2 (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

So, few things. You have done well this time by declaring your affiliation, which the previous folks should have done as well, since there are mandatory disclosures for anyone being paid or employed to edit. We do have some advice as well on editing with a conflict of interest, since it's awfully difficult to stay neutral on a subject you're close to or have an interest in. That being said, it's not impossible. The primary thing to do is to stick only to information presented in a reliable source, and to keep the majority of an article's content sourced to such reliable sources that have no connection with or interest in the article subject. That would rule out things that the subject has published itself, as well as things like press releases or interviews. If a reasonable amount of such independent and reliable reference material doesn't exist about a given subject, we can't accept an article on that particular subject.

It looks to me, to be quite honest, like the previous attempt at an article was using both the "reference bombing" tactic, where several citations that don't meet those requirements are stacked up to look impressive. Others appear to be flat-out falsified, such as the citation to [4] (listed as "Comparison of Blue Air Purifier to Rabbit Purifier", it actually just compares purifiers to humidifiers and never mentions any particular brand), this one: [5] that's claimed to go to USA Today, but actually goes to some paywalled site, and doesn't seem to be an actual article, and two claiming to go to O, the Oprah Magazine and something called "Plenty", but which actually go to two dead links on the Blueair site: [6] and [7]. Reference falsification is something we take very seriously, since the quality and integrity of our articles depends on accurately representing the references they use.

The best way to start out would be to create a draft article, at something like Draft:Blueair. The criteria for drafts are not as strict as mainspace articles (though they still may not be blatantly promotional), and this will allow a neutral and uninvolved editor to review the article before it would move into the encyclopedia. That editor would also call attention to any issues that would need to be corrected before that would be possible. It does come down to referencing, though. If sufficient independent and reliable reference material isn't available about the company, we just can't accept an article on it. As to a promotional tone, remember that no PR department will probably love a Wikipedia article. We don't allow glowing stuff and adjective overload, we don't describe "solutions" and "leading" and all that marketese stuff. We just stick to the facts, as we get them from the references, and if they've got both good and bad to say, we reflect that too. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade thank you for responding and my apologies for missing it earlier (due probably to spending much of my time travelling abroad). I take all your comments seriously and am appalled that some of the references were either apparently falsefied or misleading. As a Swedish company with a crusading approach to tackling air pollution issues its not an approach we endorse. I will certainly respect your advice in terms of creating a new DRAFT:Blueair for review and will appreciate your feedback and comments. Air pollution is an insidious threat to our planet and all living creatures, causing cancers, alzheimers and other serious disorders, and we are totally committed to helping people alleviate that threat brought on by industrial, traffic and other emissions outdoors and use of volatile organic compounds (chemicals) emitted by household cleaning products, building materials and furnishings. kind regards, David Noblewriter (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@Noblewriter: Well, certainly understand about traveling. Did that myself recently, and it can certainly take it out of you (especially when they screw up your luggage). Feel free to ping me here if you'd like any advice once you start your draft up. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I should add, since you seem quite passionate about the subject: We've also got articles about air pollution, the air quality index, indoor air quality in specific, and so on. Now, of course, the standard note that you can't just post stuff about your company there, that would be seen as spamming and not go well. But if you know where good references about that can be found, or maybe see something that should be covered there and isn't, that might be helpful to editors there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Seriously appreciate you taking time out from a punishing schedule to offer such a detailed and thoughtful response. Kind regards as ever Irondome (talk) 13:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Well thanks! I was already home and drinking a (quite real) cup of tea by then, but it certainly has been a very interesting week. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Help! I messed up trying to fix a page you deleted

Dear Seraphimblade,

You deleted a page on Clinton Ehrlich. I was trying to fix the draft of the article, but I'm not very good at using Wikipedia. Somehow I managed to instead create a new article called "Clinton ehrlich," with improper capitalization. I'm sorry for the trouble.

Could you please review the article to ensure that I've fixed the problems you identified? And, if so, would you please help me to correct the capitalization error?

I really appreciate it. Sorry for causing a mess.

Sincerely, KirkTiberius (talk) 09:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@KirkTiberius: You did a copy-and-paste "move" of the article, which violates our attribution requirements. I deleted the version you moved accordingly. The article still looks to have some serious issues, so I wouldn't be comfortable helping to move it. Please submit your draft for review through the articles for creation process. If a reviewer approves the draft to go into mainspace, they'll move it over for you. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Angie Craig draft

Got time to move Draft:Angie_Craig to an article? Or to tell me what needs to be changed in the draft? --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@BoogaLouie: I'd probably look into doing either complete paraphrases of the "partial sentence" quotes. Stuff like Craig is a "native" of Eagan, Minnesota. Is that a scare quote, or is she genuinely a native? If there's some controversy over that, we ought to explain what's in dispute about it, by whom, and why, not just use a scare quote, and if there's no dispute over it, we ought to just take the quotes off. Similarly, stuff like Lewis (like Trump) is "an entrepreneur and media personality, whose blunt rhetoric is refreshingly honest to some, simply offensive to others", while Craig (like Clinton) is "a tough female leader with moderate positions, ties to big business, and a penchant for pantsuits." Well, first, the parenthetical "(like Trump)" and "(like Clinton)" need to either go, if they're just someone editorializing, or else they need to be explained. Who compared them to Trump and Clinton? Why did they say so? That's something that would need to be attributed, not just "in Wikipedia's voice" in a parenthetical. And the changing from paraphrasing to quoting midsentence makes attribution of the quote really hard to figure, not to mention makes it confusing as to what we're attributing and what is "in Wikipedia's voice". If it's very important to have the direct quotes, they should be split off, else we ought to just paraphrase the entire way through. Those would be the main things I'd see. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: Who compared them to Trump and Clinton? Note sentence prior Area alternative weekly City Pages describes the campaign as resembling the 2016 presidential campaign. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
That's pretty clear. We'd just need to take the parentheticals out then. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade:parentheticals replaced by dashes. satisfactory? --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Rereation of Article Sharon Joseph

Hello, I wanted to create an article of South Indian Playback Singer Sharon Joseph, that is when I saw a message saying that this was an article that had been created earlier and had been deleted and I had to forward the request of recreation of the same to you. Do I have the permission of recreating the same? Hoping for a positive revert from you. Thank you very much in anticipation. --Kalepradip (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2016 (IST)

Well, you don't strictly have to, but it doesn't hurt to ask. The prior article was deleted since it was promotional. Remember that we don't allow promotional content on Wikipedia at all. Additionally, if you are being paid, compensated, or employed to edit Wikipedia, there are some disclosures you'll need to take care of making before you begin to edit. These disclosures are mandatory if that is the case. Once that's taken care of, you should start the article as a draft, at Draft:Sharon Joseph. Once you think the article is ready, an experienced editor will review your draft, and either move it to the encyclopedia or call attention to any problems that need to be corrected first. When writing the article, bear in mind our policies on neutrality and sourcing. Make sure you have available plenty of source material that meets our requirements for reliability and was produced independently of the article subject (not by the subject or someone else with an interest in promoting them). If substantial amounts of such reference material can't be found, we can't accept an article on the subject at all. That's a point to start. If you'd like my advice once you start your draft, feel free to ping me here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Seraphimblade. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Finch (production)

Hi, Please can you advise why you speedily deleted my page? All sources are verifiable, all content is factually true and the page is intended to show facts and information only. Michaelhilliard (talk) 09:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@Michaelhilliard: The article was deleted for being promotional. The entire thing read like an ad brochure, with a full client list, a big laundry list of awards, and a list of "notable projects" (notable according to whom?). Very little of the material was supported by any kind of reliable reference. Wikipedia articles must be strictly neutral in both tone and content; we do not permit advertising, marketese, "copy", or PR. Additionally, we do not permit articles written like a "company profile" rather than an encyclopedia article. Finally, it had just purely inappropriate stuff like "... at the intersection of storytelling, entertainment and technology." We don't use purple phrasing like that. I will note, as standard when an article is deleted as promotion, that there are some disclosures which must be made if you are paid, compensated, or employed to edit Wikipedia, including if you do so as part of your employment duties. If that would apply to you, please take care of those prior to editing further. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

writer needed

Hi, we are social media advertsing agency in Saudi Arabia and we would like to create a page for a bank in Saudi Arabia. I was wondering if you can do it for us with paid job of course. Please let me know if you are interested in doing so. My e-mail address is noor.alhrashi@ethoskms.com Thank you Noor Rashi (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)Noor

@Noor Rashi: I'll give you some credit for at least asking openly. I don't do paid work on Wikipedia, though. You might try Wikipedia:Requested articles. Do keep in mind a few things, however.
  • Anyone who is paid, compensated, or employed to edit Wikipedia, including who does so as a duty of employment, must disclose that fact. I'm glad you're doing so now, but you should have done so prior to editing. Paid editing without such disclosure is not permitted by our terms of use.
  • Such editors must abide by our conflict of interest rules. Generally speaking, that means they should be writing a draft of a new article to be reviewed by a neutral editor, or for existing articles, should be suggesting changes on the article talk page rather than making them directly.
  • Articles must be on a subject which is notable. This means that substantial amounts of reliable reference material independent of the article subject must be available. If such reference material is not available, we can't have an article on the subject at all. If you know where to find reference material of that type, pointing it out is always helpful.
  • This is not just arbitrary. Requiring such referencing is how we keep articles neutral. Wikipedia articles are not permitted to advertise or promote anyone or anything.
Please do keep this in mind if you're planning on hiring someone to edit. Also, if you (or they) receive a warning or are told what you're doing is unacceptable, don't just keep doing it, stop and figure out what the problem is before you continue. When you keep at something unacceptable, you wind up with a situation like we've got here, where I've now protected the page because advertising was posted repeatedly. Of course, if an acceptable draft were written and accepted, it would be unprotected at that point. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

AE

Hello. Following this comment you made at AE, could you please also comment on the case directly above it? It also involves a 1RR violation and outright refusal to discuss the reverts. Thanks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

And a related question: is administrator shopping a violation of WP:CANVAS? Zerotalk 23:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Zero0000: It would seem that it is. I'll comment on the AE threads I care to review and have time to, but it makes no difference if I'm canvassed to check on something. If I don't have the time, there are plenty of other AE admins who do. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
If it's a CANVASS violation then I withdraw my request. It never occurred to me it might be a problem. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Angie Craig draft

Got time to move Draft:Angie_Craig to an article? Or to tell me what needs to be changed in the draft? --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm not an AfC reviewer. You've got it up for review. Wait for that to take place please. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 September 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your service (2015 Film) Page deletion

Dear Seraphimblade,

You deleted a page on Thank You For Your Service (2015 Film). I do not understand why the page was deleted because it had been existing before recent edits began. The only problems were with "advertising" which I could not locate and there is no specific accusation. If you have specific problems I will change the page, but I need the original page up to even understand what went wrong. I would really appreciate if you could put the page back up, either in it's original format or recent formats, that would be very helpful because I do not want to have to start all over again.

I apologize for causing some errors, but I do not feel the page in it's entirety should be put down.

Sincerely, User:Weicj100 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Weicj100: Here's a sampling (note, not an exhaustive list) of the problems:
  • A laundry list of awards. And apparently that's not even quite enough, they have to get called "accolades". Normally, we would include only major, very notable awards, and we'd call them that.
  • "Thank You for Your Service takes aim at our superficial understanding of war trauma and the failed policies that result." We don't use second person like "our" in articles. Also, according to whom is this understanding "superficial"?
  • "Observing the systemic neglect, the film argues for significant internal cha nge and offers a roadmap of hope." Huh? What does this mean? What specific subjects does it cover? How? In a synopsis, we're looking for detail and information, not a "teaser".
  • "The film received positive reviews...". The Village Voice article cited does not say or support that. We take falsification of references very seriously; anything written must be supported by the references used for it. In that same sentence, saying it was listed as "one of the best", when it really just got a brief blurb in an article providing summations of over a dozen films, is rather misleading.
  • It was clearly created as part of an advertising campaign. Your previous account was blocked for that. You shouldn't be editing at all, it is considered block evasion and sockpuppetry to create a new account and edit with it when one is blocked. I understand you may not have known that, but now you do. You will, instead, need to make a convincing unblock request on the previous account. Given that you don't recognize the serious problems with your previous articles, and have not specified how you intend to manage your conflict of interest, I certainly am not convinced enough to do so. You're going to need to convince someone that you understand what the problems were, and that they aren't going to happen again. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Help to undelete my wikipedia page

Delhi School of Internet Marketing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Dear Seraphimblade,

You deleted a page on Delhi School of Internet Marketing. Since beginning, I tried my best to follow the wikipedia guidelines. Somehow, mistakenly don't know how the guidelines got violated and my page was deleted. Please reverse the Delhi School of Internet Marketing wikipedia page and suggest me with the guidelines to avoid the spam. I will definitely follow those and will bring the changes as per the norms. I really apologize and request you to help me out. The page was made to help students find the information and had always tried to keep it non-promotional.

Sincerely, WriterNeetin (talk)

@WriterNeetin: It is customary to place new posts at the bottom of a talk page, otherwise they may be missed. In addition to the issue with having been created as part of a marketing campaign, it was full of stuff like "The institute is a trademark of Kixx Media Pvt Ltd and a Google Partner Company" (that's marketese if I've ever seen it), "He has more than 9 years of experience in Affiliate marketing and offers consultation to companies in Website Planning and development, creating Online Marketing strategy blueprints, Lead generation, SEO plans and Facebook marketing/advertising" (brochure material, and there's no need to capitalize every noun in the sentence), and then an exhaustive course catalog. The purpose of Wikipedia is as an encyclopedia, not a student brochure. As to undeleting, I'm afraid I do not undelete advertisements. Also, please do remember that if you are being paid, compensated, or employed to edit Wikipedia, there are some disclosures you will need to take care of before editing further. If that would apply to you, these disclosures are mandatory. After that, you could start up a new article as a draft at Draft:Delhi School of Internet Marketing, ensuring to stick to reliable source material produced by organizations independent of the subject. We need substantial amounts of such sourcing in any article to ensure neutrality. If substantial amounts of source material like that doesn't exist, an article on the subject wouldn't be possible. Let me know if you have any questions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of FINO PayTech

While I'm all for getting rid of advertising from Wikipedia, I'm not sure if the aforementioned article met G11 criteria. While the bulk of the article was written by several WP:SPAs over the course of the last seven years, I found at least three articles from reliable sources that looked reasonable [8], [9], and [10] (though admittedly many articles like this smell a little like press releases even if they aren't explicitly labeled as such). The last version of the article could've used further trimming, but wasn't terrible. I don't plan on taking it to DRV, but just wanted to get some additional feedback from you. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: I'm seeing stuff in it like "...invention, innovation and implementation...", "...enable financially inclusive environment...", "...easy, accessible and cheap way...", and all that standard brochure stuff. I checked previous revisions (though admittedly, when we're talking over a hundred, I don't check every one, just a representative sampling), and didn't really find anything that didn't look like an ad brochure and could be reverted to. I'd certainly trust your judgment though, so if you'd like it undeleted to use that stuff in, say the word. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not in a hurry to restore it, as it certainly isn't a slam dunk for WP:GNG notability. If a non-SPA recreates it, that would lend a bit more credence to the company's notability. Thanks for taking a second look, OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Major edit to Andrew WK We Want Fun

Hello,

I don't claim to be a Wikipedia pro, just trying to do my best here. What do I need to change in order to make this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Want_Fun_(album) more Wikipedia-friendly?

-Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dickalan (talk • contribs) 00:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dickalan: The whole thing read like a fan page, to be quite honest. It speculated about things, it went into detail that was excessive. Some examples of issues: "An easy comparison of one recording session from another is by looking at the first two EPs released. The tracks used for the Girls Own Juice EP were all taken from the 1999 recording sessions, while the tracks from Party Til You Puke EP have an entirely different sound/styling." According to whom? Also, I've just discovered that some portions at least of the article were copied directly from other sources, such as [11]. You may not do that, it is a violation of copyright. Short direct quotes are allowed in small numbers, but generally speaking, you need to write in your own words, and you certainly may never just pull and copy text without proper attribution. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

It's back...

BLAG Magazine. --Randykitty (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Randykitty: Don't you love that? But, well, it's not now. I periodically go through the list of stuff I've deleted to check for reposts (of course, if someone actually made them appropriately the second time around, that's always a pleasant surprise), and rarely come up dry. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Hah, perhaps I should do that, too. I actually rarely go back to something I deleted. If I see that it has been deleted before recently, I put it on my atchlist until it is again re-created or until some weeks have passed, but going through my log could be an interesting exercise... Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

BLAG Magazine - Nickartillery (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi, I am the creator of the Blag Magazine Wikipedia page. Can you please tell me what I need to do to fix it so that it can stay up? I'm new to this and honestly trying my best. I did a pretty heavy rewrite since it was first taken down to try to make it more neutral and removed almost half the citations to reduce citation spam. I assure you this is not advertising, and the magazine is notable. -- Nickartillery (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
@Nickartillery: So, a few things. First off, it's my experience that when a new editor takes a very intense and pretty exclusive interest in a commercial article "stay(ing) up", they are being paid, compensated, or employed to do that. If that is the case, there are some disclosures described here you need to take care of before editing further; if that applies to you, these are mandatory. That aside, I also have serious doubts about notability. The reference list looks impressive, until you realize it's largely reuse. (There's a way to name a reference and use it several times rather than putting in the whole citation several times, I can tell you how to do that if you like.) That aside, I see stuff like this: "BLAG Magazine eschews advertising, instead producing branded-content for companies like Mercedes-Benz,[12] Nike and PlayStation. Sally and Sarah take pride in creating "bespoke, dynamic and campaign-worthy" content for companies, which allows for BLAG's creative independence and unique style to remain intact without editorial compromise.[13]" First, we use last names, not first, as we use a formal tone. Here, since they have the same last name, it would be acceptable to use a first and last name to disambiguate them, if you for example were referring to only one but not the other, but otherwise we'd just generally use something like "the Edwards". We try to stay away from a familiar tone. But that aside, we don't do purple stuff like that. "Creative independence", "unique style", "eschews advertising", "bespoke, dynamic and campaign-worthy" (and no, promotional language is still not alright if you put a quote in with it, especially midsentence). We don't do purple, breathless, ad brochure writing like that, we stick to facts. As a good test, if you have access to a PR department, have them read through your writing. If they approve it, we'll likely delete it. If they tell you it's "too dry" and needs to "pop" more, you're probably more on the right track.
Alright, so that's the ad portion. You also mentioned notability. But the list of references looks to be a "lifestyle section" writeup in one freebie paper, a brief Huffington Post blurb, something from "Complex UK" (no idea if that would be considered reliable, but I suspect pretty marginal), and the rest are brief blurbs, name drops, or sources that don't count toward notability, like citations of other Wikipedia articles, self-published material, or Youtube videos. It's possible, maybe, that this could just clear the bar, but it's quite thin. It would be much better to have sources that provide more neutral coverage, as lifestyle type blurbs are often very thinly checked on either facts or neutral tone. Basing the article on just references like that is very likely to lead to more neutrality problems. I'd suggest trying out the article as a draft, such as at Draft:BLAG Magazine rather than trying to put it direct into mainspace—getting an article right on the first try is a challenge even for pretty experienced editors. Drafts still can't be blatant ads, but more leeway is allowed while the article is in the draft stage. Once you think it is ready, an experienced editor will review the article, and either move it into the encyclopedia, or call attention to any issues that need attention first. Even if they find problems, the draft won't be deleted, but will instead be left with a note as to what the issues are. That's usually a much better way for a newer editor to get used to creating appropriate articles, and that's especially true on company-related ones—we get a good lot of spam and promotional "get the word out" material in as that goes, and so we do keep a pretty critical eye on anything like that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: Thank you so much, that's incredibly helpful. I will attempt to find some more neutral/reputable sources, make sure to refer to them by their surnames, remove any and all 'PR-style' writing, and link together repeated citations. I will then submit it as a draft for editor approval - I didn't even realize I could do that, it would be much preferred to have that guidance anyway as I'm so new to this. Thanks again! Nickartillery (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Postmates edit

Hi. Thank you for helping clean up the Postmates article. While I understand your frustration, your edit removed the company logo (which caused a bot to stop by my talk page to complain about an orphaned fair use image, now restored by another editor), the categories (now restored by another editor), and other hopefully uncontroversial parts of the article (now largely restored by me). If there are additional issues with the article, I'd recommend a more incremental editing approach. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@MZMcBride: I stubbify spam articles because they're usually full of garbage throughout. Someone put back "Subscribers can enjoy..." with pricing information (someone thought this was alright to restore?). The rest isn't great (the "History" section, especially, is a "Look how cool we are!"), but I suppose at least salvageable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

pls help undelete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Param_Sant_Bahadur_Chand_Ji_(Vakeel_Sahib)

I have posted this for the second time basis your feedback that there should not be any extra information carried in the article. This time all I carried was the guru's date of birth, place of birth, kind of teaching ie sant mat and surat shabd yog. He has followers in millions. Could you please tell why this was deleted when there is no form of advertising or promotion matter written and only details of birth, his previous masters details, and where he has his ashram. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justpk (talk • contribs) 13:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

You've already been given good advice on the article talk page. I agree with it and don't really have anything to add to it. Size of following is irrelevant as to whether we should have an article on the individual. If there isn't enough reliable, independent reference material out there to write an article about this individual from, then we can't have that article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of page Adrian Solgaard

Hi Seraphimblade, I noticed that the page for Adrian Solgaard was deleted and you flagged it as 'promotion' - it is not intented as this. It was intended as a way for persons who have backed crowdfunding campaigns by me to see more information on the background of the creator behind Lifepack and Interlock.

Can you please undelete?

indiegogo.com/projects/lifepack-solar-powered-anti-theft-backpack--3/x/13928515#/ - Lifepack has 6000 backers between Indiegogo and Kickstarter - It's good for them to have some background on the founder.

http://theprovince.com/news/local-news/lifepack-b-c-inventor-gets-huge-kickstarter-response-to-anti-theft-backpack http://www.inc.com/kate-l-harrison/the-backpack-you-will-covet-on-sight.html https://www.cnet.com/news/live-life-on-the-go-with-the-lifepack/

https://en.wiki2.org/wiki/Adrian_Solgaard - the backup of the Adrian Solgaard page can be found here.


Thanks, Adrian

It seems that the Interlock page was also deleted, though I am not sure who by - so I imagine they may have been deleted by you at the same time. https://www.walmart.com/ip/Schwinn-700c-Central-Commuter-Bike-Black/47761534 - interlock can be found for sale here it started here: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/solgaarddesign/the-interlocktm-the-lock-that-hides-inside-of-your

a couple of articles for legitimacy: http://www.bikerumor.com/2014/03/27/hands-on-with-the-interlock-seatpost-integrated-bike-lock/ https://www.cnet.com/news/this-lock-hides-inside-your-bike-frame/ http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/interlock-the-seatpost-mounted-bike-lock-36261/


A.solgaard (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@A.solgaard: So far as the biography, that's a firm no. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to be a repository of personal "bio" or "profile" pages, nor as a webhost used to "get the word out". Rather, it is to collect word that's already been well put out in reliable sources independent of the article's subject. If you'd like to have a profile of yourself up on the web, you will find that many sites do allow you to post such material, you might consider using one of them. Regardless, any such article must be strictly neutral, and a CV followed by a list of awards certainly is not neutral.
The lock might just barely scrape by notability, given that you've cited a few sources. I don't know how reliable they are. What you'd need to do, since you have a close connection with that subject, is to write the article as a draft at (for example) Draft:InterLock (bicycle lock), and have it reviewed by articles for creation when you believe it's actually ready to go into the encyclopedia. If it is, the reviewer (who will be an experienced editor) will move it there, otherwise, they'll call attention to any issues that need to be addressed. But please do be aware that Wikipedia is not for marketing or promotion, and we will absolutely not tolerate use of it in that way.
To be clear, then, no, I will not be undeleting any of the articles you cited. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


Please help to undelete Bharti Axa Life Insurance Wikipedia Page

Hi, Bharti AXA Life Insurance page that I had created is actually one of the known brand in India. It is a joint venture between 2 top companies Bharti & AXA. They have many other articles on Wikipedia one of them being of Bharti AXA General Insurance and this Brand falling under them I thought of creating one. I tried not violating any guidelines however seems like have done some. If you can help me where all the corrections are needed I shall work on the same. Looking forward for your guidance and help!

Thanks in advance for your support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nixancrasto (talk • contribs) 07:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nixancrasto: Even if the companies are notable, that would not indicate notability for every product they offer, since notability is not inherited. The correction would be to find a good number of reliable sources (check those guidelines please, that doesn't just mean "someone wrote about it") that wrote about the particular product (not the company, the product) in reasonable depth, and are entirely independent of the product or company (so no reprinted press releases, interviews, etc.). If good amounts of that reference material does exist, you could correct the problem by finding it before you write the article, making sure to stick only to what those references actually support, and maintaining a neutral tone. If such material does not exist, then we can't accept an article on that subject at all. It might bear brief mention in another article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Revived Justdial Wikipedia Page

I understand that the previously deleted Justdial page didn't have enough citations and had promotional content. However I have revived it with neutral tone and reliable sources. Emailed you the same with the subject "Justdial Wikipedia Page".

Please help in creating the page again with the revived content.

Pratikshapatil (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Pratikshapatil: I don't see how this would conceivably involve private information, since you're asking me to post it publicly. I also decline to do so, you can do that. To have what you wrote reviewed first, put it in a userspace sandbox or a draft. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

PostgreSQL page

Could use your opinion on the PostgreSQL page. I've removed a section that doesn't follow WP:Not Changelog, as I've done with all other databases pages, and an editor is reverting it. It is uncited (let alone not citing a third party), and is a list of information that doesn't increase understanding. If this interests you, I could use your opinion on the topic. q (talk) 10:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Notque: Sure, I'll take a look at it. If you find yourself in a similar situation in the future, where you and one other editor have come to a bit of an impasse, the third opinion process can often help. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I considered Third Opinion, however given the technical nature of the topic, I thought it was better to bring in someone who could understand the context. Perhaps a mistake, but that was the reasoning. q (talk) 07:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
No, not a mistake, I'm certainly happy to help with DB related stuff. Some of our coverage of them is rather poor. I just find the third opinion process to be not as well known as it should be, so I try to call attention to it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Bharat Bijlee page

Bharat Bijlee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hi,

I lead the Corporate Communications function at Bharat Bijlee, a pioneer in electrical engineering in India. We are a 7 decade old company that is headquartered in Mumbai, India and have offices across the country.

Our Wiki page was deleted by you recently and I was wondering why this happened. The page provided basic company information and we were not promoting or advertising it in any way. However if you feel this was the case, please let us know the reason and we will certainly look into it. We would like the page to be restored at the earliest and request your support on the same.

Gayatri Hingorani Senior Manager Corporate Communications

Bharat Bijlee Limited Electric Mansion 6th Floor Appasaheb Marathe Marg Prabahadevi Mumbai 400025 Tel: +91 22 2430 6237 Mob: +91 98206 09486 CIN: L31300MH1946PLC005017 www.bharatbijlee.com

103.232.11.218 (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing salvageable in that article. It's all promotion and puffery ("...leading...", "...caters to a spectrum of industries and the builders of the nation’s infrastructure...", "...testimony to a history of superior performance", and on and on and on and on with marketese and puffery like that), then goes through a far too detailed history and far too detailed product and service list. The only "references" cited are the company's own website, right down to the "Contact us" page. So I will certainly not be undeleting that. If the company has been extensively covered by reliable sources independent of it, it might be possible to write an article from those references, sticking only to what they say and avoiding unneeded puffy adjectives and marketese phrasing. If such reference material doesn't exist, an article on it wouldn't be appropriate at all. Do you know if such reference material might exist? Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of page Dax Dasilva

Hi Seraphimblade, can you please help me understand what needs to be changed in the content so that the page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dax_Dasilva&action=edit&redlink=1) will not be deleted? The content was in no way promotional, it was written in a neutral tone. Additionally, it was written so that readers could learn more about the founder's history of Lightspeed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightspeed_(company)) and how he has helped to improve the businesses of retailers in the last 10+ years. I believe it would truly be a beneficial article for readers. I appreciate your feedback.

Thank you kindly, Laurie — Preceding unsigned comment added by L1535 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@L235: Several problems. It's written in a CV style, and a lot of it's quite puffy ("awards and accolades" as a section title indeed, just...no.) Most of the cited references are either written by him, or are written primarily about the company. To demonstrate notability, there will need to be substantial amounts of reliable source material written independently of him (not by him, at his direction, or by someone with an interest in promoting him, this also rules out stuff like press releases), and covering him (not mentioning him in passing and primarily covering his company). Also, it looks like your sole interest has been in editing about Dasilva and his company, which makes it appear that you may be being paid, compensated, or employed to edit Wikipedia. If this is in fact the case, there are some disclosures that you will need to take care of making before you edit further. They are mandatory. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Correcting ping: L1535. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, there's too many Ls with a number after! Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Mohammed Imran page

Mohammed Imran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The page was created for an Athlete who has represented his country in a sport at the highest level. A reference from a third party was clearly given and it was linked from another wikipedia page ( 2002 asian games ties). I intended to improve the page , Instead of deleting the page you could have suggested changes. You clearly do not understand what it takes to represent a sport at the highest level and consider it as promotion. Here are a couple of references since you do not have the mental capacity to understand this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taekwondo_at_the_2002_Asian_Games_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_62_kg http://www.taekwondodata.com/mohamed-imran.a6os.html

@Palguay: The article was deleted for two reasons. Firstly, while we do consider competing in a sport at the highest level to be a presumption of notability, the contest you listed is not that. The highest level of competition in tae kwon do would be the Olympic Games. If he was in the Olympics at some point, and you have a reference showing that, that would be a clear assertion of notability. But even if that's the case, there would need to be substantial amounts of reliable source material published about him—not just blurbs or entries on competition websites, but sources independent of him that have written relatively substantially and directly about him. If such reference material exists, an article on him is likely appropriate, if not, it is not. Secondly, however, articles may not be promotional. We do not use purple stuff like "...represented his country at..." ("participated in" will do fine), but more importantly, we do not need a bit about the classes he conducts complete with a link to the website for them. Finally, I don't know where you're used to participating, but here, insulting people is not a great way to bring them around to your point of view or get them to listen to you. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Trump

Could you please tweak a top-level header at Arbitration Enforcement so there aren't two sections with the identical header "Anythingyouwant" (maybe put a "2" after the last one). Also, in your closing statement for the first one, you said that reverting an edit that's explicitly based upon BLP requires clear consensus, but just now such a revert was done on a different bias, i.e. that BLP requires that the lead use the more ambiguous term "sexual assault" instead of a more specific term that does not suggest or insinuate rape or attempted rape.[12]. Please check it out; I think it's a preposterous rationale for reverting a BLP-based edit. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I tweaked the header.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
It's fine to make minor formatting changes like that, generally speaking. As far as the rest, I'll look at it if I have time, otherwise other admins through there will evaluate the report. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Sierra Industries

Sierra Industries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hello, I had offered a substantial answer to accusations that this page was for promotional purpose. I wish I would have received a bit of feedback on that before the page was deleted, and maybe pointers about which part to change. I suppose it is mostly the "According to company line" part. The problem is that the commercial pitch of the company is expressed in their catalogue through graphs and figures. For example, the "Dove" Wiki has a similar paragraph: In 2004, Dove began its Campaign for Real Beauty, followed by the creation of the Dove Self-Esteem Fund in 2006 by Geyner Andres Gaona. It purports to be "an agent of change to educate and inspire girls on a wider definition of beauty and to make them feel more confident about themselves". That's clearly a direct regurgitation of that company's promotional spin, but the Wiki writer only needs to use quotation marks to point the attention of the reader to that. Since I felt I couldn't synthetically express the facts and figures boasted by the company to explain its business, I condensed their meaning in one sentence devoid of appreciative, emotional language, and took care to add "According to the company line" at the beginning to signify that my sentence was merely about the company's own perception of its contributions to the US aircraft market (effectively fulfilling the same role as the quotation marks used in the Dove article, since I couldn't myself use a direct quote). Since the claims made by the company are fairly standard and not particularly hard to believe, I felt that was fair. Greetings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomcontrib (talk • contribs) 17:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Randomcontrib: New posts go to the bottom of a talk page, as is outlined in the section above marked "Please read before posting". People don't look for new posts at the top of a talk page, so they're likely to get missed if you put them there. Also, Wikipedia is not "wiki". This stuff aside, it threw in marketese like "patent portfolio", had unnecessary puffery, e.g., "...gained prominence..." (according to whom?), "...popular Eagle modification...", (popular according to whom?), "...product lines based on proprietary STCs." (Like what, and why's that significant?) It's not the worst I've seen, and there might be some salvageable references, so if you'd like, I'll restore it as a draft. But the resulting article will need substantial amounts of reference material that is about the company, not its products and not its industry in general. If that reference material doesn't exist, an article on it wouldn't be appropriate. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


Undue warning

bsd. While my talk page is a big collection of orphaned image warnings, it is certainly NOT because i use wikipedia as an image storage. I deal almost exclusively with logos, which are almost always non free. Logos are constantly being changed by their owners, and also by other wikipedians uploading better versions. Being non-free, old versions must be deleted. Also, quite a few articles have their notability disputed, and the associated logos are orphaned as a result. More broadly, you will see that all notices on my page are bot generated, and none are for vandalism or inappropriate editing. Also, I've been around for quite some time, and made quite a few contributions, so i know what i'm doing. Just a little clarification.--Ben Stone 06:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Austin Huns Rugby

Hello, my first article was recently deleted for "(G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)." I went through your help page to get more information on what both of these notices meant but I still slightly confused. If you could help me that would be great. Anything that was quoted another website, I was sure to put a reference to it so it wouldn't be considered plagiarism. Also, it was not meant to be "advertising or promotion" necessarily. I say necessarily because anything dealing with sports teams on Wikipedia could be considered promotion to an extent lol. Any help you can provide on this case would be greatly appreciated. This is the 1st of many articles I plan to produce on the rugby teams in the south, specially in the Red River Conference to begin.JustinXHale87-2305(UTC), October 29, 2016

@JustinXHale87: There's plenty of promotional fluff in that one. Consider "...have developed an organization and a culture that have produced winning teams, first class coaches and players. The club is dedicated to developing athletes for national and international rugby competition, who are also constructive and contributing members of our community. They take pride in our contributions to improve the City of Austin, our organization, and the culture of athleticism in the Unites States." Total brochure fluff. Articles are required to be strictly neutral in both tone and content, and to not "talk up" or promote the subject of the article. That's one example of fluffy, promotional language, but by no means the only one. As to the copyright infringement, significant portions of the article are copied verbatim from other sources. A reference is not enough in those cases. Small numbers of direct quotes are permitted where they are absolutely essential to the article, but must be enclosed in quotation marks or a quote block. Just providing a reference isn't enough if the content is copied word for word, and in no case should substantial portions of an article consist of text directly copied from a nonfree source even if it is properly quoted. In this case, the copied material was also promotional. We'd of course expect that from material the organization wrote about itself, but since we require neutrality, we should paraphrase that into neutral terminology rather than dumping it verbatim into the article. Finally, you'll need to demonstrate that the organization is notable. This will mean that reliable sources independent of the subject (having no connection with the subject and no interest in promoting it) have written substantial amounts of reference material about it. The bulk of what is used in the article should be these independent, reliable, neutral sources, not, for example, material published by the organization itself. If such reference material doesn't exist in significant quantities and from multiple sources, an article on the subject isn't appropriate at all. If it is available, the article should primarily consist of material referenced from those independent third-party sources, with self-published material used very sparingly and only to reference uncontroversial facts, like for example who the leader of the organization is. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

URGENT

I'm dealing with two rogue users, either related or sockpuppets of eachother. They keep editing Saptaparna Chakraborty. The page is meant to be a redirect, which you know about and fixed, then they put the page back, and I put the redirect back. This is an edit war. I reported them for sockpuppetry, but nothing has happened. Please block them. Adotchar (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Adotchar: Looks like Bishonen has taken care of it. As an aside, if you put your header as "Urgent" in all caps and bold tags, and nothing is burning, no one is bleeding, and no one's at imminent risk of death, you stand pretty good odds of irritating someone rather than getting your desired result. This isn't urgent. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, it was before Bishhonen took care of it. It turned to an edit war of sorts. Adotchar (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding Aashayen_Foundation

so will you tell me the pattern or procedure to write the page on the wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spatsariya (talk • contribs) 21:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Spatsariya: I presume you're asking in regards to Aashayen Foundation. The messages you were left had indications of what was wrong. I also have a guide linked in the section above marked "Please read before posting". I presume you didn't read that before posting, since it also says to put new sections under a new header, and that wasn't done either. (I've now added the header.) First, if someone objects to or reverts your edits (or requests deletion of a page you created, don't just plow ahead and make them again. That means there's a problem. Before continuing, determine why they saw them as a problem and how that can be corrected. In this case, as has been repeatedly explained to you, your editing was promotional, and we do not permit promotional material. To write an article, first determine if there are substantial amounts of material published about a subject by reliable sources that are not affiliated with the article subject. If that type of reference material does not exist, an article on the subject is not appropriate at all. If it does, gather the reference material and use it (not material published by the organization or its affiliates, including material like interviews and press releases) to write the article. Ensure that the article is neutral in both tone and content. This would normally mean not posting verbatim things like a "mission statement" or the like. If you are closely affiliated with a subject, you should not edit the article directly. On an existing article, you should use the talk page to suggest edits. For one that doesn't exist, write a draft and have it reviewed by articles for creation rather than putting it directly into mainspace. It's extremely hard to stay neutral on topics you're very close to or have an interest in, and that review by editors without a conflict of interest helps to identify any problems. Finally, if you are being paid, employed, or compensated to edit Wikipedia (including being asked or expected to as a duty of employment), you would need to make some disclosures. These are mandatory if any of that applies to you. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 19

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 19, September–October 2016
by Nikkimaria, Sadads and UY Scuti

  • New and expanded donations - Foreign Affairs, Open Edition, and many more
  • New Library Card Platform and Conference news
  • Spotlight: Fixing one million broken links

Read the full newsletter



19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Recreation of Sharon Joseph

Hello, I had already approached you earlier regarding the recreation of the deleted article Sharon Joseph. You had already advised me earlier to create the same as a draft. I sincerely apologize as I was not able to follow up with your instructions then. May I request your help once again as to how I may create this article as a draft - as to, how I could submit the same to you for you to check and go through before the article can actually be published? I would really appreciate your help! Thank you very much in anticipation! kalepradip 07:25, 26 October, 2016 (UTC)

@Kalepradip: You'd write the draft at Draft:Sharon Joseph. Once you think it's ready to submit to articles for creation, I could certainly have a look at it and bring up any issues I might see. I'm not an AfC reviewer, though, so my advice would be strictly informal. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: Thank you very much for your revert. May I also clarify, that once I create the draft with the aforesaid headline as you have advised, the article remains unpublished, until you have a look at the same? And how would I be able to bring it to your notice too? kalepradip 11:08, 26 October, 2016 (UTC)
You can drop me a note on my talk page. But again, I will only be taking an informal look over it. A reviewer from articles for creation will do the actual review, and will either move it into the encyclopedia if it's suitable to do so, or call attention to any problems if it's not. If not, you can fix those problems (provided they are fixable, if the problem is just that there isn't enough source material out there, nothing to be done for that), and try again. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: I understand. I hope to create the article as per the norms and then share it with you. Thank you once again kalepradip 13:23, 28 October, 2016 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: I have created the draft of Sharon Joseph @ Draft:Sharon Joseph, of course since I'm considerably new to editing on Wikipedia, there is lot of help that this page needs. Would you be kind enough to go through the draft and help make the necessary changes to the same, please? Your help would be really appreciated! Thank you very much! kalepradip 11:07, 31 October, 2016 (UTC)
You don't need to ping me on my talk page. I'll already receive a notice any time a message left on it. I'm afraid I don't have the time to read the reference material and write it myself. Some issues of note:
  • Your references are not done correctly. Some of the tags are improper. Also, references should be used next to the statement they are intended to support, not just piled up at the bottom of the article.
  • The large tables are probably excessive. Those should be reworked into prose.
  • Last name, not first. The first time she's referenced, it should be "Sharon Joseph". After that, references to her should be "Joseph", not "Sharon".
Have a go at getting those fixed and I can take another look. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. I faced a problem in rearranging the references. Somehow, they are not going into the proper format even after I tried editing the same. I guess I need an expert help for the same. The tables, maybe I can rework and check again. Thirdly, I haven't followed the last point suggested by you. Could you please help me gain more clarity on that? Thank you very much! kalepradip 13:00, 02 November, 2016 (UTC)
To the last point: The draft often refers to her as "Sharon". We use a formal tone, so we should not use the first name, but the last (except the first reference to her, usually the article's first words, which should be her full name and bolded). So: "Sharon Joseph is (insert what she's best known for here). Joseph has...". Not "Sharon has...". As to the reference tags, what are you having trouble with? Are you using the visual editor or the text editor? Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of page "ifocus mission"

Hello, my first article "ifocus Mission" was recently deleted for "( G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)." Please let me know the part of the contents which are promotional. Help me in this regard, i would like to recreate the page with same name, with modified contents,drafts. How can i recreate and submit for review ? Arifahmed78 —Preceding undated comment added 14:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Arifahmed78: The entire article is a sales brochure, and "talks up" the organization. This is not permitted, as all articles are required to be neutral in tone and content, and promotional material is not allowed. First, you'd need to determine if there is enough source material for an article at all. That material must be from sources that are reliable (having a good reputation for fact-checking and accuracy), and independent (not being affiliated with or interested in promoting the organization, and no self-published material like reprinted press releases or interviews). If a substantial amount of that type of reference material doesn't exist, it's not appropriate for us to have an article on the organization at all. If it does, use the draft article you've started, but instead of providing a bunch of talking points about how great the organization is, use those high quality third-party references to neutrally provide factual information about it. Also, as I remind everyone who comes here with an article deleted for promotion, if you are paid or compensated by someone to edit Wikipedia (including if you are asked or expected to as a duty of employment), there are some disclosures you'll need to make before you edit any more. If any of the previous applies to you, those are mandatory. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of the Page: Skizzy Mars

Hi, I'm new to wikipedia and I've studied the guidelines but I might mess up with something along the line, so I'll apologize ahead of time, sorry. I'm talking on your page because back on October 2nd, you deleted an artist's page, Skizzy Mars, for "Unambiguous advertising or promotion." I read up on the reason to see if I could get it undeleted because we are to edit or create entries in our class--I chose a rapper I'm fond of (I will present only neutral information)--and I found that with that form of reasoning, or code "G11," was not to be asked to be undeleted in the Wikipedia:Undeletion section so I routed out the person who deleted it to see if we could get this sorted out so I can edit the page afterwards. If you or anyone else want to check an article before I put it up, I'd be happy to comply. I have two reason's for wanting to recreate this page which are the fact that he has released 2 studio albums (that I know of) and he is referenced on many other pages and has a link that leads to a deleted page. Please review my request and provide me with an answer and/or steps to move forward, thank for reading! TheQueditor (talk) 12:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@TheQueditor: So, first, good luck with your school assignment. That being said, this title has been create protected since inappropriate articles kept getting created there. So, you'll need to approach it as writing a new article. The first thing you need to do is find reference material. The material should be from a source that's reliable, meaning that the source has an established reputation for editorial control, fact checking, and accuracy, so not a blog, fan site, or the like. The reference material should also be independent, so nothing written by the subject, and that also rules out reprinted press releases, interviews, and so on. Finally, to sustain an article, there needs to be a substantial amount of that reference material available, so not mentions in passing or name drops, but references that are substantially or entirely about the subject directly. If you find that substantial amounts of that type of reference material don't exist, it's not appropriate for us to have an article on that subject. If it does, use either your userspace or a draft, such as Draft:Skizzy Mars, to write the article, ensuring to write only what's supported by the references you found and keeping the tone and content entirely neutral (the past pages resembled fan pages or marketing material, which are not appropriate, we don't "talk up" an article subject). Once you've got your draft written, let me know. If it's appropriate, neutral, and cites decent sources, I'll unprotect the page so that you can move the new article to mainspace. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Shoulder (band) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Shoulder (band). Since you had some involvement with the Shoulder (band) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's a little while ago. Thanks for letting me know, but I don't particularly care what happens to it either way. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Andrew Turner (RAF officer)

Andrew Turner (RAF officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi there. It says on the deletion notice that I am to contact you if I would like the material deleted. I have seen comments on the article created and it is acknowledged that the article should exist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Extra_admin_eyes), but reading your G11 code guidance it seems you don't think I should write it because of a conflict of interest. I'm sorry, but I am new to this, is there a place where I can ask someone without a conflict of interest to write the article for me? Otherwise presumably I will have to do it myself. Any assistance you can offer would be gratefully received.Aoc22gp (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Aoc22gp: Well, no, you don't "have" to do it yourself, since we don't have to have an article on anyone. Indeed, the vast majority of people on Earth (me included) are not represented by an article here, and probably never will be. For an article to be written about an individual, there must be substantial amounts of reliable source material written, "reliable" meaning sources with a solid reputation for editorial control, fact checking, and accuracy. The material must also be independent, so no material from that individual or those with an interest in promoting them (such as their employer, in this case the military). That also rules out things like reprinted press releases and interviews. And finally, the material must be substantial, so name drops, blurbs, and brief passing mentions don't count, the material must be in reasonable depth and must substantially or entirely be about the individual in question. If substantial amounts of such material exists about this person, you can certainly try requested articles. If not, it's not appropriate for us to have an article on them at all. However, we certainly, in any case, won't permit things like a stylized gallery of ribbons, and we sure don't need alphabet soup of "CBE MSc MA BSc FRAeS CCMI RAF". That's puffy and promotional. The article would have to be a full, neutrally written biography, not a "Look how great he is!" piece. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Maria Gabriela Brito

November 8, 2016 - Hi, it says you deleted this page - I'd just like to better understand which guidelines I didn't follow and what I could do to fix it. Wasn't intending to make it promotional, but informative on an author and curator. ThanksChelsaat91 (talk) 14:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Chelsaat91: It looks likely, from the history here, that you are being paid, compensated, or employed to edit Wikipedia (this includes being asked or expected to do so as a condition of employment). Before you edit further, please answer with a clear "yes" or "no" whether or not this is the case. If "yes", there are some disclosures you will need to make before editing any more, these are mandatory if any of the above applies to you. Once that's taken care of, we can discuss whether or not an article would be appropriate on this individual. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: I do know Maria, but I'm not being paid. Happy to make any disclosures, edits to the page, etc. Chelsaat91
@Chelsaat91: Well, that will do then. Disclosure is only required if you're getting paid, so in your case it's not. (You don't need to ping me on my talk page by the way, since one always receives a notice of an edit to their talk page.) Since you're not being paid, there's no disclosure required. So, for the next things up. I think there is likely to be sufficient material available for an article, but it'll need to be reliable sources, so the blogs and the like need to go. NYT, WSJ, Forbes, etc., certainly meet the criteria for reliability. Further, the reason the article was deleted as promotional was due to some very purple and fluffy stuff like: "...high-end fashion accessories...", "...high profile clients....", "...Her expertise in the art world and easy integration of contemporary art into day-to-day spaces has garnered Maria worldwide recognition in that field...". Also, the entire article refers to her as "Maria". We use a formal tone, so the first reference to her (normally the first words of the article) would be her full name in bold text. Thereafter, she would be referred to as "Brito", not "Maria". I do see you've started up a draft, which is what we generally recommend for editors who have a conflict of interest, since it can be hard to remain neutral on a subject you're very close to. If you can tone down the promotional language and trim down the article to only material from reliable sources, it would be likely to get approved by articles for creation and be moved into the encyclopedia. Let me know if you have any questions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I changed all the Maria's to "Brito," took out the fluff, etc in the draft and submitted for review. Hopefully that's better this time around. Chelsaat91 —Preceding undated comment added 16:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

PD logos question

I came across this logo (File:Champion Energy logo.png) and was wondering if it qualifies as PD. I remembered about this similar one (File:Maersk Logo.svg), but this one too is on a non-free license. It seems to me that both are PD, but i would like to know what do you think.Thank you --Ben Stone 19:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Benstown: My initial suspicion is that it's PD, since I don't see that either the coloring or the shape passes the threshold of originality. You might want to ask at media copyright questions to get a few eyes on it though, just to be sure. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you --Ben Stone 23:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers

Hi Seraphimblade,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Seraphimblade.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Virginity gone

Re [13], I'm indeed an AE virgin. Though (I now see) you're right about not-threaded, I think I'll just leave things as they are, since it's clear this is going nowhere and I don't see there being any difficulty for the closer.

The idea of an editing sanction being imposed for actions strictly restricted to userspace is, of course, absurd, and it's quite incredible the amount of editor time wasted by one tone-deaf sky-is-falling overreaction. As I pointed out to someone else, I seem to attract the gentle ministrations of admins who suddenly reappear after years of inactivity. Must be something I did in a prior life. After I reopen my Newly Renovated, All-Singing, All-Dancing Userpage, I hope you will drop by and enjoy, if you haven't already. EEng 06:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

P.S. It was all worth it, though, for the laugh I got here [14]. EEng 06:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Not terribly concerned about it in this case, as long as it doesn't get out of hand. But you can imagine what things used to look like when you had half a dozen editors, on varying sides of some ethnic or national conflict, all going back and forth accusing one another of something or other. Got unmanageable very quickly, hence the own-section rule and word limit. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of page "Calpeda"

Hi, i've noticed about the deletion of the page named "Calpeda" because of "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". I only want to have a clarification about the reasons of this action. I know that company and i personally think that the work they made in association with Europump could represent an encyclopedic content, in particular for the energetic aspects that are shown in the sources. However because i'm a newbie of Wikipedia i'll really appreciate of being aware of what to do for edit a page that fully embrace Wikipedia's policy. Regards CalcaraCarlo35 (talk) 07:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)CalcaraCarlo35

@CalcaraCarlo35: So, standard stuff that I'll always tell someone asking about an article deleted for promotion, is that if you are being paid, compensated, or employed to edit Wikipedia (including asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment), you'll need to make some disclosures before editing further. If any of the above applies, those disclosures are mandatory. That out of the way, the article read like a sales brochure, not an encyclopedia article. As some examples (not an exhaustive list) of the problems: "...has been committed to research, development and the industrialisation of pump systems for more than 50 years.", "...tied to the experience of the memorable Officine Pellizzar.", "...passion for engineering and mechanics and his desire to create something innovative.". All that (and most of the rest) is fluffy, promotional language that wouldn't belong in a neutral encyclopedia article, as such articles must be neutral in both content and tone. So, what can you do? First, determine if there's a significant quantity of reference material meeting the standards of reliability, covering the company in significant depth, and being produced independently of the company (so not by the company or someone else with an interest in promoting it, also rules out interviews, reprinted press releases, etc.). If a decent quantity of reference material like that isn't available, it wouldn't be appropriate to have an article on that subject at all. If it does, I'd try writing the article as a draft, using only what the references support, and sticking to factual information without throwing in a bunch of extraneous positive adjectives. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review

Hi, I just noticed that you have already warned at least one user several times about not conforming to the tagging instructions at WP:NPP, especially CSD and AfD. Please check if such users are holders of the New Page Reviewer right and consider removing the right. This is a right where we need to exercise zero tolerance because the Indexing/Noindexing of new pages depends on it. If you want to quickly see what rights users have, you may wish to consider installing this script in your user.js page: User:Splarka/sysopdectector.js, IMO it's one of the most useful scripts an admin could have. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Kudpung: That is very likely to be the next step if this continues to happen, and there may be a revisiting of the idea of a topic ban from the area altogether. But if you're talking about who I imagine you are, that individual does also make a lot of good nominations. It's very much my hope that a clear warning can stop the bad ones while retaining the good work they do, but if that proves not to be true, then further action will indeed be needed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and also, thanks for the script recommendation, but my popups script already shows an individual's user rights, so I think it might be rather redundant to that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of the Hinrich Foundation page - November 8, 2016

We have noticed that the Hinrich Foundation Wikipedia page has been deleted for "unambiguous advertising or promotion. It was not our intention to use this page as a promotional vehicle, but as an avenue to inform internet users as to the charitable initiatives of the foundation, which focus on providing opportunities to advance individuals and communities in developing Asia. We would like to work with you to recreate the page in the appropriate norms of inclusion. Could you please walk us through the steps to reestablish our page? ThanksEricalexanderjohnson (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ericalexanderjohnson: First off, from the "we", it seems that you are either being paid to edit Wikipedia, or requested or expected to do so as a condition of employment. Please first make the disclosures required when this is the case, and then we can discuss whether or not a page on the organization is appropriate for Wikipedia. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade:I am indeed a paid employee of the Hinrich Foundation. I read on the "Paid-contribution disclosure" wiki that I should disclose this information here and in future contributions. I also read on other threads that you would need third party sources to verify the legitimacy of our foundation and that our page should remain neutral in tone. I am of course willing to comply with these policies. Could you please let me know what should be done at this point?Ericalexanderjohnson (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
@Ericalexanderjohnson: (For reference, you don't need to ping me when responding here, one always gets a notice for an edit on their talk page.) So, the next step would be to make those disclosures, and after doing that, make a draft article. We strongly discourage editors with any conflict of interest, including editing for pay, from directly editing or creating material in the encyclopedia, because it's very difficult for anyone to maintain neutrality in a case like that. The draft process lets you use the articles for creation review process so that uninvolved editors can check the proposed article and call attention to any problems before it moves to the encyclopedia, and because it's a draft, while it still can't be a flat out advertisement, we do allow more leeway for drafts in progress than articles already in the main encyclopedia. In this case, you would probably create it at Draft:Hinrich Foundation. You will, before you do that, need to make sure that there's a substantial amount of reference material available that meets the criteria for reliability, and is independent of the article subject (so not published by the subject itself or anyone with an interest in promoting it, also rules out reprinted press releases, interviews, and other material that's not independently created and fact checked.) If a substantial amount of that material doesn't exist, an article on the subject wouldn't be appropriate. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Seraphimblade, thank you for providing guidelines. Could you please send me the text version of the deleted page? I will get started on the revisions and create a draft that is neutral in tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericalexanderjohnson (talk • contribs) 00:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't see restoring it as useful, there's not a whole lot salvageable there. Try starting it again as a draft and staying away from all the promotional language and puffery. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Seraphimblade. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #16643

Hi! UTRS ticket #16643 has been reserved to you since October 25th with no action. Was the reservation a mistake? Do you want me to release it back to "new"? Apologies if you're actively working on it behind the scenes. I don't want to intrude nor do I want to appear as if I'm looking behind your shoulder, but Vanjagenije re-assigned it to tooladmins to check whether it was a forgotten ticket so I thought I'd ask. :) 17:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!: I apparently never got the email for that one coming back. By all means, do as you will with it. Sorry for the confusion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Request for unprotection and move for Skizzy Mars

Hi there! You seem to have deleted the article Skizzy Mars and protected the page from being created again. However, the musician in question seems to easily pass WP:MUSBIO; a quick Google search returns many reliable sources on the artist. Plus, his albums and even a single charted in different countries. Although currently a work-in-progress, I have recreated a draft of the article on Draft:Skizzy Mars, and I believe it is thorough enough to be moved to the mainspace at Skizzy Mars. Could you take the steps necessary to accomplish the move? Thank you! —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@SomeoneNamedDerek: Well, you sure did better than the spammers! I've removed the create protection. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks! —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Follow up - Move Locaid Page & Update Content or Delete Page

Hi Seraphimblade,

Thank you again for your feedback regarding the Locaid page. (Link to feedback)

Over the next few weeks, I am planning to rename the page and make a number of edits. Since I have a conflict of interest, I am curious about the best approach to making these changes. I have a number of third-party references to support these changes and I want to ensure that I follow the appropriate protocol throughout this process.

Should I just make all the changes at once or is it better to do this in waves? Should I submit drafts to you or another editor and seek approval before making the changes?

I look forward to your feedback and will answer any questions.

Thanks, Nick

Nweidmann (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Previously deleted page

Hi Seraphimblade, I'm reaching out after I read all of your review guidelines and tips =) I'd like to ensure that I go about this correctly since I'd like another shot at revising one of the pages I created that you deleted: Madison Reed. I better understand now (after creating other pages and working with various editors) where I went wrong and how I can better. I'd like to continue creating company pages related to the individuals I've been working on. Would I be able to "Request userfication of the deleted article?" Or, do you think I should go ahead and create another one? Thank you! (Estee Hand (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC))

@Esteehand: I've userfied the page to User:Esteehand/Madison Reed (company). I removed a lot of the parts that contained promotional material, especially the highly detailed product guide, but you can still view them in the page history if any of the references will be usable while writing the new version. It looks like you've been improving quite a bit at editing, keep it up! Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade:Thank you so much! This made my Gobble Gobble day. I appreciate the feedback and your consideration. Yup! Trying to improve here as I'd love to contribute, so just trying to find a good happy medium. I would love any and all feedback you have on my other work, especially the stuff that is marked for deletion lol! I try to find great examples in each category that are "clean" (no tags), but not sure that's a great strategy. Thanks again! (Estee Hand (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC))

Update: Oh no! It looks like it was deleted again =( What do you reco I do? "A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted. If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below. 15:42, November 24, 2016 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs) deleted page User:Esteehand/Madison Reed (company) (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Esteehand/Madison_Reed_(company)&action=edit&redlink=1 (Estee Hand (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC))

@Esteehand: That was my fault. I thought I'd removed the speedy tag but apparently I didn't. I'll ask the deleting admin about it, he's generally a reasonable guy so I don't think there should be much issue. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
@Esteehand: After discussion with the admin who deleted it, I've undeleted it. I would advise you to keep in mind his comments [15], and if you have any conflict of interest such as being affiliated with, paid by, or employed by the company, remember that paid editing disclosures are mandatory. If you are not being paid or compensated to edit about the company, those would not apply, but if you are, such disclosure is mandatory. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade:Got it! Thank you for helping me. And yes, I totally get the rules, and I am not being compensated by the company. I'd like to create more, for example one for Hatch Baby, but since I didn't do so great with this one, I'm just trying to find a good balance. I took a look at other similar staged companies, including SOMA Water, and a few others to get a sense of what and how to write. Would love to know from your perspective if there are any good models out there. Thank you, again, and hope you had a good Thanksgiving! (Estee Hand (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC))
@Seraphimblade:I made some change =) to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Esteehand/Madison_Reed_(company). Would love to know what you think! Thank you (Estee Hand (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC))

ForeScout wikipedia page

Hi Seraphimblade. You recently removed the ForeScout Technologies page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ForeScout_Technologies) because it looked too much like an advertising. I've made edits to the page and would like to resubmit my content. Can you please help walk me through this?

Thanks! Eringobradley (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


Just following up. Can you please advise how I can submit new content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.228.177 (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Eringobradley: First, it appears likely that there's paid editing taking place here, meaning that an editor is paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia (including being asked or expected to do so as part of one's employment duties). If that is the case, you'll need to make some disclosures prior to editing any further, those are mandatory if any of the above applies to you. Once that's taken care of (or you've confirmed you're not being compensated to edit), we can continue from there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Total Newbie and overwhelmed.

I have an issue with another editor but I am uncertain how to go about things diplomatically. I have read most of the content that I can understand without direct experience but I'm overwhelmed. SO MUCH INFO to absorb. I do not want to get things wrong. I have tried to make small changes to an article however I am being blocked by another editor. I have composed something that deals with it but now what? What is the best course to follow to explain in detail why changes are necessary without drawing even more ire? Where is the best place to put it as it is a bit long 7K characters including citations. Do I simply put it in the talk section of the article? Do I first use it as a reply to the other editor and if so how do I bring up their talk page? I also wish... that I could get feedback from another editor on what I have before I take the leap. Help? Maris Sefiro (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2016 News

Guild of Copy Editors December 2016 News

Hello everyone, and welcome to the December 2016 GOCE newsletter. We had an October newsletter all set to go, but it looks like we never pushed the button to deliver it, so this one contains a few months of updates. We have been busy and successful!

>>> Sign up for the December Blitz! <<<

Coordinator elections for the first half of 2017: Nominations are open for election of Coordinators for the first half of 2017. Please visit the election page to nominate yourself or another editor, and then return after December 15 to vote. Thanks for participating!

September Drive: The September drive was fruitful. We set out to remove July through October 2015 from our backlog (an ambitious 269 articles), and by the end of the month, we had cut that pile of oldest articles to just 83. We reduced our overall backlog by 97 articles, even with new copyedit tags being added to articles every day. We also handled 75% of the remaining Requests from August 2016. Overall, 19 editors recorded copy edits to 233 articles (over 378,000 words).

October Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 16 through 22 October; the theme was Requests, since the backlog was getting a bit long. Of the 16 editors who signed up, 10 editors completed 29 requests. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all editors who took part.

November Drive: The November drive was a record-breaker! We set out to remove September through December 2015 from our backlog (239 articles), and by the end of the month, we had cut that pile of old articles to just 66, eliminating the two oldest months! We reduced our overall backlog by 523 articles, to a new record low of 1,414 articles, even with new tags being added to articles every day, which means we removed copy-editing tags from over 800 articles. We also handled all of the remaining Requests from October 2016. Officially, 14 editors recorded copy edits to 200 articles (over 312,000 words), but over 600 articles, usually quick fixes and short articles, were not recorded on the drive page.

Housekeeping note: we do not send a newsletter before every drive or blitz. To have a better chance of knowing when the next event will start, add the GOCE's message box to your Watchlist.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdslk.

>>> Sign up for the December Blitz! <<<

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Guidance on changes to existing page when I have a conflict

Hi Seraphimblade,

I apologize if I mistakenly did not follow your request in my previous communication as it was not my intent. I am a newbie too and I am hoping you can provide guidance on the best approach to making changes to the Locaid page.

I am planning to rename the page and make a number of edits because Locaid was acquired by my company in Feb. 2015. Locaid is no longer in existence. I have a conflict of interest since I work for the company that acquired Locaid. I might be over-thinking this but I want to ensure that I follow the appropriate protocol throughout this process. I also have third-party references to support these changes.

How do you recommend that I make these changes? - Do you recommend that I make all the changes at once? - Or is it better to do this in waves? - Should I submit drafts to you or another editor and seek approval before making the changes?

I really appreciate your help and I look forward to your feedback.

Thanks! Nick

Nweidmann (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 December 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))

Happy New Year, Seraphimblade!

Happy New Year!

Seraphimblade,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 07:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

You missed one page to remove

Hello, I understand what you said about SML, but you missed on page List of characters in Super Mario Logan I posted before. So can you please deleted this?

Wiki-Ikiw (talk) 9 January 2017 - comment posted by Wiki-Ikiw

Now done. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 20

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 20, November-December 2016
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs)

  • Partner resource expansions
  • New search tool for finding TWL resources
  • #1lib1ref 2017
  • Wikidata Visiting Scholar

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Czech Chemical Society

Hello, I do not understand, why did you delete a page of the Czech Chemical Society - a Society, which exists more than 150 years. No promotion, no self-advertising was on that page. Why Hungarian Chemical Society pages is OK and Czech Chemical Society is not OK? I beg for help about creating the page, nobody of Wikipedists try to help - only one, who sends me some "tutorial" - in fact a pile of "blah, blah, blah". I was ready to help improve Wikipedia, but I was kicked in a very harsh way. I will never donate a dime!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by R Liboska (talk • contribs) 14:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@R Liboska: Whether or not to donate to anything is, of course, your choice. You are certainly not required to, nor do donors receive any preferential treatment. That aside, the article really wasn't, it was essentially just a sentence or two followed by several links to the organization. That's textbook linkspamming. In order to write an appropriate article, you would need to find reference material produced independently of the organization that meets the criteria for reliability and provides coverage in reasonable depth. If substantial amounts of such reference material exists, then an article can be written, sticking only to what those references say. If it does not exist, I'm afraid we could not accept an article on it at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry. It is not about donations, it is about the fact, that I spent portion of my time to create page, which has, imho, the right to exist in this encyclopedia. The Czech Chemical Society exists for more than 150 years, it has hundreds of members, many of them are excellent scientists. The Society is comparable with American Chemical Society or Royal Chemical Society which have theirs pages here with no problems. For some procedural reasons CCS page was deleted. I even hadn't enough time to complete the page. I understand, that the notability should be proved, but this is to much for me to understand. The textbook linkspamming, omg! So I let the more funded people to create pages here. I am really disappointed with the attitude of Master Wikipedists to the newcomers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R Liboska (talk • contribs) 15:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


Please Seraphimblade, move the delete page to my draft space. I am going to improve it. R Liboska (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@R Liboska: I'm willing to do that, provided you're willing to have the article reviewed by articles for creation rather than moving it directly back. Creating appropriate new articles is rather challenging, so it helps to have someone experienced review it for any problems. Would you be willing to agree to that? Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, agree, thanks R Liboska (talk) 07:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@R Liboska: I've moved the page to User:R_Liboska/Czech_Chemical_Society. I commented out the article issue tags since those are intended only for mainspace articles, but please do take note of them. Those issues would need to be corrected in order for the article to be approved by AfC. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The word "but"

Quoted from your userpage:

  • I am male but a strong supporter of gender equality.
  • I am Caucasian but a strong supporter of racial equality.
  • I am heterosexual but a strong supporter of LGBT rights, including the right to marry.

Interesting use of the word but!

  • If I would've been a female human then I would be opposed to giving males the right to vote, because they generally suck at it.
  • I identify as a potato and I know there is just one human race.
  • I am a heterosexual male and a strong supporter of my own right to marry whoever I want. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
@The Quixotic Potato: I suppose you can twist it around whatever way you like. I don't really like having words put in my mouth, though. What it says is what it means, no more and no less. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand your reaction. I don't think I've put words in your mouth or twisted the meaning of words that were typed by your fingers and I linked to a page that explains that the word "but" can be interpreted to mean several different things. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, I'm sure it can be interpreted in many different ways. But it really doesn't mean anything beyond what I said. Essentially, "I'm largely a member of the majority, with the exception of being an atheist (which no one knows unless I tell them), but I still support the rights of others to live as they will, provided they don't hurt anyone by doing so." Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News

Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News

Hello everyone, and welcome to the February 2017 GOCE newsletter. The Guild has been busy since the last time your coordinators sent out a newsletter!

>>> Sign up for the March Drive! <<<

December blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 11 through 17 December; the themes were Requests and eliminating the November 2015 backlog. Of the 14 editors who signed up, nine editors completed 29 articles. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all who took part.

January drive: The January drive was a great success. We set out to remove December 2015 and January and February 2016 from our backlog (195 articles), and by 22 January we had cleared those and had to add a third month (March 2016). At the end of the month we had almost cleared out that last month as well, for a total of 180 old articles removed from the backlog! We reduced our overall backlog by 337 articles, to a low of 1,465 articles, our second-lowest month-end total ever. We also handled all of the remaining requests from December 2016. Officially, 19 editors recorded 337 copy edits (over 679,000 words).

February blitz: The one-week February blitz, focusing on the remaining March 2016 backlog and January 2017 requests, ran from 12 to 18 February. Seven editors reduced the total in those two backlog segments from 32 to 10 articles, leaving us in good shape going in to the March drive.

Coordinator elections for the first half of 2017: In December, coordinators for the first half of 2017 were elected. Jonesey95 stepped aside as lead coordinator, remaining as coordinator and allowing Miniapolis to be the lead, and Tdslk and Corinne returned as coordinators. Thanks to all who participated!

Speaking of coordinators, congratulations to Jonesey95 on their well-deserved induction into the Guild of Copy Editors Hall of Fame. The plaque reads: "For dedicated service as lead coordinator (2014, 1 July – 31 December 2015 and all of 2016) and coordinator (1 January – 30 June 2015 and 1 January – 30 June 2017); exceptional template-creation work (considerably streamlining project administration), and their emphasis on keeping the GOCE a drama-free zone."

Housekeeping note: We do not send a newsletter before every drive or blitz. To have a better chance of knowing when the next event will start, add the GOCE's message box to your watchlist.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdslk.

>>> Sign up for the March Drive! <<<
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

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

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13
Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
  • Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
  • A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Things Are Possible (Hillsong Church album) (2nd nomination)

Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Things Are Possible (Hillsong Church album) (2nd nomination). However, given that the !votes were 4-4 and it survived a previous AfD, I think it would be helpful to explain your reasoning - how did you determine that there was a consensus to delete? StAnselm (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@StAnselm: Sure. And actually, 5-4 in favor of deletion. The nomination, unless it explicitly states otherwise, is also considered an argument to delete, and in this case clearly is advocating deletion. But of course, AfD is not a majority or a supermajority vote, but a discussion ultimately based on strength of argument. In the previous AfD, the arguments were based upon a presumption of notability from a chart position. That's reasonable when the article is relatively new, but it's also reasonable to expect that if they exist, those references will at some point actually materialize and get used. It's reasonable to ask for some time in finding them, but it's not reasonable to ask to wait forever for them and keep handwaving that they must be out there somewhere when in depth searches have failed to locate them. In this AfD, that presumption was directly challenged. While various things can create a presumption of notability to some degree, that is a rebuttable presumption. Ultimately, the reference material to support an article must in fact exist. Here, a very good case was made both that the presumption was not as strong as it normally would be since the chart was rather obscure, and that a good faith search for reference material had failed to turn up anything but the barest and most trivial mentions. Indeed, even those arguing to "keep" turned up some pretty trivial stuff, which would tend to indicate that's the best they could do. One would at least hope they would present the very best references they could find. When it came down to it, the "keep" arguments were either for inherited notability from the band itself (which does not wash), or were based upon the very presumption that the argument was challenging, rather than backing that presumption with actual valid references. Given that, the delete arguments were actually policy-based and carried the discussion, and were never really successfully challenged. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks. StAnselm (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I'm impressed with that reasoning, and glad you didn't go for the easy option of "no consensus". StAnselm (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, good explanation. Thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 19:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Lifting of topic ban

I was topic banned from Khazar-related articles for six months for a 3RR infraction. (a penalty even my reporter thought was egregious) It has definitely six months since then and my ban has stifled debate in an area that needs some serious work. Can I request an unban from you? :)--Monochrome_Monitor 20:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Monochrome Monitor: That ban was imposed by EdJohnston, not by me. It's not allowed for a single admin to unilaterally reverse another admin's AE sanction, and I wouldn't do so even if it were. You'd need to first discuss it with EdJohnston, and then follow the AE appeals process if that does not resolve the matter to your satisfaction. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Thankya very much.--Monochrome_Monitor 20:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Her Greatest from Abbey Road / User:Britboy1976

Hey Seraphimblade. Thanks for restoring the CN tags on Olivia (singer). Not long after, I noticed you blocked a user as their username gave the impression they were promoting something they have a connection with. Along the same lines, a link was added to List of 2017 albums earlier for a new Vera Lynn collection titled Her Greatest from Abbey Road, and I noticed that the creator, Britboy1976, is the same who told me on my talk page in 2015 after my edits to The Very Best of Cilla Black that "I produced the 2013 career-spanning compilation album with Cilla to celebrate her 50th Anniversary in showbiz" and implied he works for Rhino or Parlophone or whichever label compiled both recordings. The user doesn't have many edits, but when they do edit, it seems to be to create a page for the latest compilation by an "esteemed artist" he's worked on. I've warned them for having a COI on their talk page, but I'm not sure what else they will do (try to undo my neutralisation of their wording, continue spruiking products they have an involvement with) at this point and was wondering what more can be done. Ss112 13:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

There's a dedicated noticeboard at WP:COIN for the purpose of handling suspected COI and paid editing. The editors who monitor that board have a lot of experience handling COI and should have some good advice for you. Do, of course, mind WP:OUTING when making any reports there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Bloomsdebut8

Has restored unsourced content to Olivia (singer) and very dubiously sourced content to Olivia discography (using an AllMusic listing for an album that shows nothing beyond a release date—no other information can be found about the album on the internet) and this unreliable site that says nothing. I was going to report them to WP:AN/V but thought you might block them, as they've been given a final warning. Ss112 18:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't really have time to check into that myself right now. A report to an appropriate noticeboard would probably be your best bet. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
If I reported it to WP:AN/V they would most likely not treat it as vandalism but rather a content dispute, and my report would most likely be dismissed. When you do get time, please look at what they've done. You gave them a final warning, they disregarded the final warning and continued restoring the information. It's pretty open and shut. Ss112 20:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Frank Ancona AFD

(Disclosure note: I created the article Frank Ancona.) Hi, I wanted to ask whether you might reconsider your closure of this AFD as delete, since IMO, the delete and nom arguments were not very convincing. For instance, John Pack Lambert (one of 2 delete !voters in this AFD) simply said, "This article is on a person and there is no indication this person is notable," and the nominator said that Ancona "Doesn't seem notable outside of his death." Neither of these arguments seems to stand up to scrutiny, since there were multiple sources discussing Ancona in detail from well before he died. Everymorning (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Afraid not, the clear consensus is to delete. Someone at the discussion did bring up that an article on his death might be appropriate. Perhaps take a look at that angle and see if that could work? Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Restore page as draft

Hi there! I'm currently organizing an edit-a-thon, and one of our editors pre-maturely published Mayra Rodriguez, which was speedily deleted under G11. I was hoping the article could be restored at Draft:Mayra Rodriguez or User:Lorenasml/Mayra Rodriguez so the editor can take a closer look and improve the article, with guidance. The article was originally translated from the Spanish Wikipedia and the editor was hoping to improve it more. I know G11s aren't commonly restored, but from the glance I got before the article was deleted, it didn't appear too far out / has potential. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@SuperHamster: Not the worst I've ever seen, but the CV style will definitely need to be fixed. I don't see any issue as a draft, especially if someone's keeping an eye on it, so I've restored it as such. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll let the editor know, and will also take a look at it when I have some time. Cheers, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I am having the same issue. The page was for Becky Alley. It was deleted as "promotion." Could you please restore the article and we can address the concerns? Emmogood (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Emmogood

@Emmogood: Sorry, but no on that one. The previous one wasn't as bad, but the Becky Alley one was blatantly promotional from the very first (right down to starting with a pull quote). If you'd like, I'll pull out the list of references and leave those for you somewhere, but the article itself doesn't have anything salvageable in it and would be a blatant G11 candidate even as a draft. And for everyone who might wonder about this, please remember that edit-a-thons and the like are still subject to normal editing rules. Please help people to understand what is and is not permitted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

If you can pull out the list of references that would be good and we can revise it during the remaining time in our edit-a-thon. Thanks Emmogood (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Emmogood

Placed at User:Emmogood/Becky Alley references. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank youEmmogood (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Emmogood.

Becki Ronen AfD

@Kurykh: Seraphimblade Please consider changing your closing of this AfD to 'Keep no consensus.' Admittedly, most of the 'keep' arguments were flawed, even mine to a small extent. The 'delete' arguments were worse−most were exercises in 'label and dismiss,' with occasional, tenuous connection to Wikipedia guidelines. In other words they were opinion pieces and POV.

Perhaps, it's rehashing the debate, but I'll repeat my strongest argument for retention: dedicated articles in 2 reliable sources, The Wichita Eagle and The Topeka Capital-Journal.

There's a stronger argument for the change to 'no consensus.' This deletion is a tacit endorsement of the sorts of inadequate arguments presented by the deleters, and an encouragement for POV opinion pieces in the AfD discussions. Tapered (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tapered: Sorry, but no. While there were some poor arguments to delete, several deletion arguments directly addressed the referencing and found it insufficient. The consensus was clear to delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Seraphimblade As an Admin, you have some discretion. The 'insufficient' assessments ignored 2 dedicated articles in reliable sources—which I repeated twice. The deletion came only 25 hours after I pointed that out—not much time in a discussion that had been relisted twice. The deletion strongly implies that those newspapers are not reliable sources, or accepts the right of the deleters to unilaterally classify sources as non-reliable. You can use your discretionary powers to reverse that. Please do. Tapered (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
The answer was "no", and will remain no, regardless of how many times you ask the question again. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
You're not addressing the issues raised. And you're resorting to 'I'm the authority,' an 'argument' often used when a person with power can't/won't answer a strong challenge.
It's correct that everyone has the right to "screw up," and good faith is a necessary requirement for Admins. This exchange demonstrates that it's certainly not sufficient for the task. Tapered (talk) 01:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Not my place. My job is to evaluate the consensus of the discussion, not whether I personally agree with the outcome, nor to "supervote" to nullify a consensus I might not agree with. Note that I'm not saying any of that is or is not true here, nor will I. If you still disagree, DRV is thataway. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Two questions. 1) Do you not have the right, even an obligation, to evaluate comments, in this case unilateral relegation of a reliable source, and discount such a comment? 2) As I read thataway, the case I've presented here doesn't qualify. I was considering it, but did this instead. Is that a mistake? Tapered (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
The question is whether the arguments are policy-based, not whether or not I actually agree with them. If an argument is entirely free of policy backing ("Delete this, because I dislike the subject"/"Keep, they're the best ever!"), then yes, I can and will discount those. But if an argument is based in policy ("Delete, the references presented are insufficient"), it's not the closer's job to determine whether they think that was right. The fact that two references from normally reliable sources exist is not a guarantee of an article's inclusion, and participants in the discussion can evaluate those sources and find them insufficient. If the consensus of the discussion is that there isn't enough source material available to sustain the article, that is very much a policy-based reason to argue for its deletion. As to your second question, it was not a mistake to ask in the first instance (it's in fact generally expected before taking any further steps), but "no" means "no", not "keep asking". Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Unless a behavioral issue is involved, if I think an idea of mine is rational, and I'm being civil, I'll attempt to persuade using rational arguments. 'No means no,' strikes me as anti-Wikipedian—authoritarian. Tapered (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Being tendentious is a behavioral issue. If you ask me to take a second look at something, and present a reason I should, then sure, I'll do that. I'm human, I'm as capable of missing something as anyone. But if I say "No, sorry, not convinced", then I'm not going to argue about it ad nauseum. Your option, if you still think I made a bad call, is to ask the community to review what I did, in this case at DRV. If the community agrees my decision was the wrong one, the consensus of the community would overrule me. That's exactly how the consensus process is intended to work on Wikipedia. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, my bad. I overlooked "there was a clear concensus!" After my "keep" entry, that's about as factual as Donald Trump. I'm not going to spend my time fussing about an article of dubious value—the quality of the discussion, fair treatment, and intellectual honesty were always the issues for me. Congratulations on reserving your rights. Excellent strategy. Tapered (talk) 05:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

On this day, 12 years ago...

Hey, Seraphimblade. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Mz7 (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Tashiana Jenkins

Hello, could you please take a look at this article and speedy it as a blaytant hoax. Tashiana Jenkins. The references have fake titles which point to trayvon martin articles. Google has nothing on it, it is like a fake parody. Thanks. Antonioatrylia (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Antonioatrylia: The article already has a speedy deletion tag on it. That means an admin will evaluate it, but since you specifically asked me to, I specifically decline to do so, since that is admin shopping. Please let the process take its course normally. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Tania Tome deletion

Hi Seraphimblade, thanks for helping Wikipedia, I'm writing to let you know that I responded to the copyright issue, I wanted to delete the mentioned image but I couldn't remove it from Wikimedia, can you please restore the page and remove the copyrighted material? I have more to add to this page and I'm willing to make it perfect, also, I'll work on getting a new picture that doesn't violate Wikipedia copyright rules, I'll be thankful if you help me with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahmoud Esnawy (talk • contribs) 09:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mahmoud Esnawy: Copyright violations cannot be undeleted. Sorry, but that is not negotiable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

BelugaCDN

Hey Seraphimblade, our page was recently deleted under G11. We responded in the Talk page (which was deleted without response), saying that we used similar language that exists in two published Wiki articles. We would like to know which lines are in violation of your terms so we can rewrite them. This is important to us, we look forward to your help in getting our article published. Thanks. --Haxsyn (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Haxsyn: Several issues with it. It's reference padded, which is often a sign of advertising or self-promotion. Some examples: "The brining (sic) of assets closer to the end-user minimizes network hops and latency, resulting in faster download speeds and shorter page-load times." That's straight out of a marketing brochure, and the only "source" is from the organization itself. That would not be a case where we'd allow the use of a self-published source. "BelugaCDN was well received..." is also marketese fluff, and is "sourced" to an anonymous review site. That is absolutely not something that can be generalized into saying it's "well received". "Despite strong headwinds, BelugaCDN went on to secure contracts with top Alexa-rated websites, including top online publishers, ad networks, and media companies alike." Yet more fluff, and that one's totally unreferenced. The entire article reads like that. Wikipedia is not a directory, including a business directory, and most companies aren't appropriate article subjects. If they are, we need to stick to references that are from reliable sources produced independently of the article subject (so not press releases, interviews, etc.). If a substantial amount of reference material like that doesn't exist, it's not appropriate to have an article on the company. If it does, we'd need to stick to only what those sources say, and not use them to generalize into "talking up" the organization. Articles must be strictly neutral in both tone and content. Finally, your use of "we" and your focus on this article leads me to believe you may be being paid to edit (which includes editing on the subject as part of an employment duty). If that is so, there are some disclosures that need to be made before editing further. You may not have known that, but now you do, and if any of the above is true, such disclosure is mandatory. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok, got it. I'm new to this so thanks for explaining. I added the disclosures to my user page. For the company page, fine, let's keep it simple, like BunnyCDN's. A few lines, tell people who we are. Less references. --Haxsyn (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@Haxsyn: Thanks for adding the disclosures, but I'm afraid you may have misunderstood my meaning. It's not about less references, it's about better references. If better references don't exist, we can't accept an article on the company at all. Wikipedia is not for "profiles" or to "tell people who we are", and most companies, people, bands, etc., are not appropriate article subjects, because there isn't enough high-quality reference material to write an article from. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
True Wikipedian Mahmoud Esnawy (talk) 10:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it a lot, I'll try to be careful next time.

Guivi Sanadze deletion

Hi Seraphimblade, I was wondering why the page for Guivi Sanadze, scientist and member of Georgian Academy of Sciences, and a person who discovered Isoprene (The first report of isoprene emission from plants was published in 1957 by Professor Guivi Sanadze, source - Plant Cell Environ. 2017 Feb 4. doi: 10.1111/pce.12930) was deleted? I don't think creating a page for 87 year old scientist is some form of advertising. Especially depicting life and work of scientists under USSR rule is of significant importance to humanity and science. Gb dft (talk) 11:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Gb dft: Whether someone is 7, 87, or died 200 years ago, promotional material is not permitted. The article was a long series of mostly unreferenced claimed accomplishments, and then a laundry list of "most significant publications". ("Most significant" according to whom?) Articles are, without exception, required to be neutral in tone and content, not "talk up" the subject or be written in the style of a CV. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


Bay View Elementary

Hey man, I just made a page for my old elementary school and you deleted it. I don't see how it is advertising, most schools have Wikipedia pages, and my elementary school was a public school. I was wondering why you thought it wasn't good for wikipeida? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathaniel67213 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nathaniel67213: Actually, elementary schools are not generally appropriate topics for separate articles. They would need to pass the requirements for notability, and many elementary schools do not, though some of them do. However, in this case, that wasn't the problem. We do not permit promotional content of any type. Some examples of the promotional content here: "...offers an enriched educational experience...", "...I (sic) is a warm, welcoming, active school community school that offers many opportunities for families to be involved in their child’s school experience...", "...At Bay View, there is a place for everyone to belong.", "Their primary goal for your child is academic success. Regardless of language, learning style, or choice of program, your child will be challenged and receive the full curriculum for their grade level. They offer differentiated lessons for all ability levels and small group instruction for literacy and math.". In addition to being promotional, the changes in subject ("their" to "our") looks like parts of it was copied from elsewhere (we also never address the reader, such as use of "your"). We do not allow copy and pasting from other sources, as this violates copyright. But even if it were all written in your own words, we do not allow promotional content. The entire article was "talking up" the school, which violates our core principle of neutrality. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

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

Administrator changes

added TheDJ
removed Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
  • The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
  • An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
  • After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

  • After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
  • Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Wade of Aquitaine Deletion

Hi @Seraphimblade: a page I recently created was deleted. It was called Wade Aquitaine. I want to recreate the page and avoid it being deleted again. Please could you let me know why it was deleted. I just need some examples from you from the article so I can correct what is wrong with it. Best wishes.SFrancis1608 (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFrancis1608 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@SFrancis1608: This looks to have been part of a "campaign" including an ad "article" created near the same time for the publisher, and the creator of that edited the article in question here too. First off please clarify if you are being paid or compensated for editing Wikipedia, including being asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment. If any of the previous is true, there are some mandatory disclosures to be made before we continue. Once that's cleared up we can proceed from there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: I'm not being paid for this, I am an intern, and I was asked to create a Wikipedia page for the book series. I would very much like the article to exist...Please let me know what I can do to create the page. Best wishes SFrancis1608 (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@SFrancis1608: Thanks for clarifying that. The first thing you will need to do is find reliable sources that were produced independently of the books and cover them to some substantial degree (so not just name drops, mentions, or blurbs). Once that's done, an article can be written sticking just to what those sources say. If sources like that don't exist, the books wouldn't be an appropriate subject for an article. Regardless, however, the article will need to be written in a neutral tone. Since you've got somewhat of a conflict of interest in this case, it may be better to write the article as a draft, where someone without such a conflict can evaluate the article prior to it going into the encyclopedia. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok @Seraphimblade:, thanks a lot for your help. I'll implement the steps you have mentioned here. Much appreciated. SFrancis1608 (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Deletion and Reprimand for Catherine Templeton

Greetings @Seraphimblade:. I did not intend to post any subjective matter on WikiPedia. The article covering Catherine Templeton is well-sourced, so any and all constructive feedback would be very helpful.

@Nplusone: The issue is not being well-sourced (there actually might be enough source material to write an article), but being blatantly promotional. The whole thing reads like a campaign brochure, complete with a smiling head shot. That has a problem of its own, by the way, "evidence provided upon request" is not sufficient, or if need be, consider this a request. The permission must be present with the image. If you (or the copyright holder) need to submit it by email, the process for doing that is at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The "personal life" section is going over how wonderful she is, rather than being written as a neutral, dry, timeline. (We certainly wouldn't normally find it necessary to say where someone goes to church.) The "Sandra Day O'Connor" section has to throw in "prestigious" (we don't do that), and then a centered pull quote of little value to an encyclopedia article but of significant value to a campaign. This portion, "Templeton is credited with crafting the nation's only state immigration law that was not constitutionally challenged by the ACLU. She then created an immigration enforcement program that saved the state almost $2 million a year over what the Sanford administration had budgeted in spending annually.", blatantly falsifies what the cited source says (it says the ACLU does indicate it's challenging it, and it never mentions any dollar figure), and is again pure puff. Here, again, "...South Carolina’s anti-union reputation was key to Boeing’s 2009 decision to expand its assembly operation to North Charleston. Merely appointing Templeton defend SC jobs drew a fight from union leaders outside of South Carolina." The cited source says the governor claimed such a thing would happen. That is not sufficient to state as a fact that it did happen, and is again blatant source misrepresentation. The whole article is full of similar issues and is all a campaign brochure. We require that articles be strictly neutral in both tone and content. And articles must stick strictly to what the references say, neither downplaying or exaggerating their actual contents, nor extrapolating those contents to reach a new conclusion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, @Seraphimblade:. That is incredibly helpful. I'll start with a smaller article that outlines her career in position. Regarding the headshot: Wikipedia provides the option of "provide evidence upon request," so I would advise that if that option is not acceptable, WikiPedia not provide it to those who are submitting an article. I'm not sure how describing her husband and children and volunteer work is sensationalized; I'll concede that the description of her law career is too subjective. Again, I'll start with a smaller article.

Could you point me where you saw that? Yes, if that's the case, it certainly does need to be fixed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: - if you're referring to the "Provide Evidence Later" for the photo - it is part of the wizard to upload. You are still required after that to select a license agreement (I chose the closest to what I knew). I'm ready to resubmit the article for review. It's much smaller. Would you mind advising me on how to resubmit for review? Thank you for all of your help!

(You don't need to ping me on my talk page, I automatically get notified when someone leaves me a message here.) You already had one going at Draft:Catherine Templeton, but I had to delete that one as promotional. Put it there, and then you can submit it in for review. If it's accepted, the reviewer will take care of moving it into the encyclopedia. Otherwise, if there are any issues, they'll bring them to your attention. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

VSN deletion

Hi, @Seraphimblade. You have deleted an article I created yesterday related to a well known company in the broadcast industry named VSN. I don't think it should be consider promotional as it has other pages in other languages with similar content that have been approved before. If you are so kind to retrieve the content and point out other flaws, I surely can improve it. Thanks in advanced. ~~Aarandaedit~~

@Aarandaedit: I do not undelete advertisements. As far as the issue, the entire article looks like a "profile" and catalog of services rather than an encyclopedic summary. Articles need to be based upon reliable sources that are independent of the article subject (so not interviews, reprinted press releases, etc.), and stick to only what those sources cover. If such reliable sources exist, an article could be created based upon them. I would recommend doing so as a draft, as creating a new article correctly from the beginning is very challenging, especially for a new editor. If a substantial amount of reference material like that doesn't exist, then it wouldn't be an appropriate subject for an article at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Olga Prokopova deletion

Why you deleted the page? I have links to authoritative sources, and the articl`s subject from a neutral point of view? If there is something to redo it, it's not a problem, but why do you put on quick delete an article if WP:G11 written: "Note: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion." - Marino Asler —Preceding undated comment added 06:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Marino Asler: As standard for me to ask on deletions of this type, we'll first need to clear up whether you're being paid or compensated for this work, including doing it as a duty of employment. If so, there are some mandatory disclosures to be made before we proceed further. Once we've got that cleared up we can proceed from there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade:I don't get paid for my work on Wikipedia, I'm beginner and i not know how to use all functions. I know the rules. I wondering why my post you mistook for spam? In the publication referred to many authoritative sources. If is there bad link, I don't mind to remove them. - Marino Asler
Thanks for clearing that up. So, a few issues. First, the article looks more like a "profile" than a biography. It's essentially just "talking up" her jewelry. It's got several inline links to other Wikipedias, which we generally would not do, and then a massive table of social media accounts, which we would never do. The large list of references look to be a type of "reference bombing". To be an appropriate reference, the reference in question should meet our standards for reliability, should be produced independently of the article subject (so not self-published material, reprinted press releases, interviews, etc.), and should be substantially or entirely about the article subject, not just name drop them or mention them in passing. I don't have time to go through all 40 "references" used here, but a spot check shows me that most if not all of them fail one or more of those requirements. Reference bombing like that is also a sign of attempting to "camouflage" promotional content by making it look well-referenced. Finally, the use of a familiar tone (referring to her as "Olga" rather than "Prokopova") is also often indicative of marketing copy. We use a formal tone. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments. Let me correct the mistakes in the article. I'll rework the article, please, give me four days.Marino Asler —Preceding undated comment added 19:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean by "give me four days". Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Please give me the opportunity to correct the article Marino Asler —Preceding undated comment added 23:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
You don't need my permission. If you can write an appropriate article, you can do that. Since you're relatively new at this, I'd strongly recommend doing it as a draft rather than trying to put it straight into the encyclopedia. Making a new article that's immediately appropriate is a challenge, especially for a new editor; doing a draft gives you more breathing room and lets you ask someone more experienced to review it first. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Please Restore the article so I can edit it -Marino Asler —Preceding undated comment added 08:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't restore ad articles. Someone else would delete it again anyway for the same reason, and I couldn't tell them not to. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Please tell me how do I edit an article with the same title to avoid being deleted - Marino Asler —Preceding undated comment added 13:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I have already provided what advice I have to give. Please see above. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, if you can't quite manage a new article at this point (which is fine, it's one of the more challenging things we do), maybe you'd be better off to get some experience editing existing articles first. Finding an appropriate subject for a new article and then getting it written properly is not easy, so maybe it's something you'd be better off to wait a while on. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 21

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 21, January-March 2017
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

  • #1lib1ref 2017
  • Wikipedia Library User Group
  • Wikipedia + Libraries at Wikimedia Conference 2017
  • Spotlight: Library Card Platform

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


Message from PLeaseForTheLoveOfGod!

Hey Rambi My Man Thank You For Your Help Bud I Was Hoping You Picked Up My Article Again And I Though I Didnt Need Those Links But I Put Them In As More information to verify i guess i will drop them there in no intent to promo and want to do the exact opposite. just list facts about an certain individual or entity. i hope i hit your talk page correctly and i hope to talk with you soon..rambi — Preceding unsigned comment added by PLeaseForTheLoveOfGod! (talk • contribs) 23:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@PLeaseForTheLoveOfGod!: Sorry, but I really have no idea what you're saying. Please try to write what you're saying with standard English and capitalization. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
While I'll accept that it may have been an accident this time, don't again remove my own comments on my own talk page. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

So you decide to avoid the question but yet you wasted energy to tell me about a comment that got deleted of your page...really rambi, plus this article is no where near as tagged up with promotion as compared to other articles ive see i.e https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_DZA and this is just one of many article that ive seen with heavy promotion and are in a braggadocious tone...i dont know whats your problem bud. "talk to me" — Preceding unsigned comment added by PLeaseForTheLoveOfGod! (talk • contribs) 07:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The fact that another article is a certain way doesn't mean that one's necessarily appropriate either. May just mean no one's noticed yet. As to the particular article in question, the only real "references" cited are links to material published by the article subject. References are required to meet the standards for reliability, to have been produced independently of the article subject (so not self-published material, reprinted press releases, interviews, etc.). If a significant amount of material like that doesn't exist about this individual, they are not an appropriate subject for an article at all. If it does, do you know where it can be found? But without that, the article is essentially a "profile" to increase this individual's visibility and exposure, and that is not permitted on Wikipedia. There are other sites that do allow such activity, so if that's what you want to do, you might consider using one of those instead. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Student Loan Hero deletion - April 11

There was not consensus for deletion and there definitely wasn't obvious advertising. Undelete the page and do a normal non-speedy delete with a discussion or give time to reduce it's "advertising" if that's really what you think it was. This doesn't improve wikipedia, it feels more like a power trip. HarryKernow (talk to me) 03:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've really got no idea what you're talking about. Speedy deletion isn't a consensus process, so of course there wasn't one. The article was a "profile" with a brochure section for services offered, textbook advertising. That being said, if you believe you can write an appropriate article on the subject, you're certainly welcome to; a previous speedy deletion doesn't in any way prohibit that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

AE

Apologies for the revert; I confused you with Seraphim System, who has been rather problematic recently... Number 57 19:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, no troubles. Too many Seraphim around, it would seem. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
...oh there can never be too much seraphim around, surely!'👼 🔪 — O Fortuna velut luna 08:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Saveco article deletion

hello @seraphimblade the article I wrote about Saveco was deleted may I know why? I used Tesco as a template to follow to write the article so if the article I wrote was not appropriate then the Tesco article won't be appropriate in this case. I am a new user and I read the rules and cited everything I wrote as found online. The reason for writing this article and the others I intend to write is because I am passionate about new and upcoming companies in Kuwait and would love for people to know about them. I googled a few of the names I found and wouldn't find anything in English in their names. so I decided to write the articles. I am not advertising and if you see the article it is purely based on facts the same structure as Tesco. thanks for taking the time to read! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Q8tiwala (talk • contribs) 23:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The article was full of promotional language. We require articles to be neutral in both tone and content, and to not promote anyone or anything. Some examples of marketese: "...all-inclusive destination store...", "...flagship stores...", "...caters to the healthy consumer". Also, I find use of things like "Ms." to be hallmarks of advertising articles; we never use "Mr.", Ms.", etc., just the individual's full name on first mention and last name thereafter. Creating an appropriate new article is a challenge, especially for new editors. I would strongly recommend instead that you do so as a draft and seek feedback from articles for creation, or gain some experience editing existing articles before trying to create a new one. When you do look to create a new article, ensure you've found a substantial amount of reliable source material produced independently of the subject, and neutrally summarize the facts verified by those sources. We don't permit peacock terms or unneeded positive wording, and we watch that especially closely on articles about companies. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Seraphimblade. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 09:44, 15 April 2017 (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.
— O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 09:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Seraphimblade/archive_14&oldid=1089629643"