User talk:SoWhy/Archive 27

This is an archive of past discussions with User:SoWhy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Edit summaries on talk pages...

Sincere confusion here. I honestly don't see the point of using edit summaries on talk or discussion pages. What am I going to say - "reply to (x)"? "answered question"? Those are empty and devoid of information. Copying the comment to the edit summary? Those types of edits really stand much better in context (and it's, as you said, a pain to do on mobile, from which I edit a majority of the time); I don't see why having to review the edits is a bad thing given the places where I don't tend to leave edit summaries are in active conversations. I agree that it's useful on articles and other non-discussion pages, but I'm having trouble comprehending the rest. ansh 666 08:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ansh666: As I said, communication is key. Edit summaries, even just a small "reply" or similar, allow people to understand why you edited a page without having to check the diff. Did you reply to someone? Or did you fix something? Did you move some comments to the right place? Is there anything someone else might be interested in reading or is it clearly between two editors? Take for example, this recent edit: Is it a comment, i.e. something that might be interesting to more people or is it just a reply to someone, interesting only to the parties involved? Or this edit: Without checking the diff, one cannot even determine which thread it belongs to or that it even belongs to any discussion or is not a new message (which might be of interest to talk page stalkers). Or this AFD comment: Is it a comment? You fixing another AFD? A !vote? Nobody knows who just sees the change on their watchlist. If you are editing from mobile yourself, you must know how hard it is to assess someone's edits on there. I don't think there are reasons to make it harder, on any page. Think of it that way: Leaving edit summaries means people who trust you to make good edits don't have to review those edits just to find out what you were doing (and thus whether it might concern them), thus saving them time to do something else. Regards So Why 08:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know...perhaps it's because I have a penchant to actually click through and review every edit regardless of what the edit summary says (and maybe partly because my watchlist is very small)? I don't particularly read them even when on mobile, I prefer (as I said above) having full context for anything in case it's something that would interest me. In any case, thank you for taking the time to explain it to me, and I'll keep that in mind for the future, starting with this edit. ansh 666 08:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

To each their own but people like me with approx. 6,000 items on their watchlist (and many editors have far more), checking each edit - especially on mobile - is impossible. I'd be happy if you can really change this and prove (part of) my oppose rationale wrong. Regards So Why 09:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I've got a hundred odd articles on my watchlist (basically everything I have improved to at least GA plus a few I mean to if I get round to it), and every other day some editor turns up and changes something without an edit summary, and it drives me up the wall. If you get into the habit of using edit summaries everywhere, it forces you to think about what you've just written, and make a final decision on whether your edit is actually useful. This goes even for talk pages; there is a semantic difference between "reply to 'x'", "2c", "off topic rant" and "advice". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Yikes, I rarely ever go above 70 on mine, and the majority are zero-activity pages (my own userspace, or articles where socks vandalize every couple months), since I tend to not watch pages with a lot of activity. That certainly puts things in perspective. ansh 666 18:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Just going to interrupt here and say I'm in agreement with Ansh666 here, with regards to talk pages, and in fact any edit summary. Like him, I check every diff and keep my watchlist a sensible and useable size. If your watchlist is 6000+ pages, you're going to have a bad time, especially on mobile if you want to know what happened to every article on it. "Reply", "re" or the dreaded and useless "r" are utterly useless to me because I would check the diff regardless because I'd want to know what they'd said - so no need for the edit summary. Even if it said "fix" I would still check it, being the nosey bugger that I am :-). I would always use an edit summary when making major changes to an article, or any edit that could be confusing based on the diff produced. But every single edit? Not needed, and certainly should not be a deal breaker for adminship. Has there ever been a case of an admin being de-adminned for not using an edit summary? I'd be very surprised. They are a guideline for good reason. Aiken D 22:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I actually do seem to recall that at least one editor has been sanctioned on the admin noticeboards at least in part because they refused to leave edit summaries, but I can't be bothered to look through a hundred archive pages to find it. ansh 666 22:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

would always use an edit summary when making major changes to an article, or any edit that could be confusing based on the diff produced. That is pretty much every edit, from my experience. You'll be amazed at what people can object to or squabble over. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

CSD nominations

Hi SoWhy, I'd like to thank you again for your input into my last RfA candidate poll. After a few months, I have worked on improving my CSD nominations, and have made considerable progress (CSD log). I've also helped to develop an article review flowchart for New Page Patrol, this process I feel has helped improve my understanding of CSD criteria immensely (and hopefully it can help others too). Anything else you would recommend that I should do to further improve? Also, any feedback on my CSD log or the aforementioned flowchart is welcomed. Thanks for your time. — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 23:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi there ICPH. Intesting idea with the flow chart, I mostly agree with it (except for the "draftify" part but I accept that I'm in a minority when it comes to that). The chart would be better if it weren't an image though, because then you could link to the various cited pages and scripts which would make it much more useful (which is actually possible with CSS3 (see here) but I don't think it can work on-wiki because it requires css to be defined (well, it would probably work for people who imported the css to their common.css)). Another idea: maybe someone can create a reviewer script that one can invoke on such a page and click through the various entries until they reach the correct outcome? As for the log, I'll have a look later when I have some more time. Regards So Why 08:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The program I used it can export as an SVG file, which I might try to get working, the problem is that it doesn't work in all browsers, which means it would always have to be an 'alternate' version. It is also possible to make it a image with clickable links on it, which I plan to do once I am really sure that it is not going to change (which will probably be after we define a draftification policy).

I also already have been thinking about a script that clicks through the flowchart as a series of pages that allow you to automatically implement many of the recommended changes, that would be really cool, but again will have to wait until we are really sure nothing is going to change, which I am not 100% confident about just yet. I am also not a programmer, so I'd need someone like Evad37 to collaborate with, and am wary of asking someone else to take on this large workload.

I did try to keep draftifaction narrowly construed in the chart, and really it is optional anyway, as the clear alternative (and within editor judgement) is AfD if you don't agree with draftifying. This is also a good option, because it might result in some other eyes on the article that find sources that you could not. I can see the other side of this argument and might actually put an "or" in the chart to reflect this (a script would give both options at the "yes" answer to "does the article have useful prose?", so the flowchart probably should too.) — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 10:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi SoWhy, thank you for your comments at my RfA and here. Your feedback is much appreciated, and I'm glad you took the time to give it. Cheers, ansh 666 00:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ansh666: You are welcome and despite my opposition, congrats on passing RFA. I hope you will continue to accept constructive feedback in your new role and I'm happy to assist in any way I can. Regards So Why 08:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

RS

claims coverage in RS. What is RS here? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 05:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Innocent bystander: Sorry, when you have been editing for a time, it's easy to suffer from TLA-itis. "RS" means "reliable sources", see WP:RS. Regards So Why 07:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Yea, I know, I have just not yet learned the enwiki-dialect. I am more used to that of wikidatawiki and svwiki!

In this case I think that this political party exists and the drama inside the party has been well covered by RS, but the description of its ideology and ideas is only covered by itself and/or its closets friends.

But as you said, this probably needs more of a discussion, than a speedy-process. Our main problem on svwiki has been that we have been flooded by meat-puppets who has promoted this party. The main notability-idea on svwiki is that political parties have to have at least a seat in a council through a general election. This party has all its seats from rebellion within other groups. But this is far from my main field of interest, and maybe also yours... -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Innocent bystander: No worries. Our notability criteria are not that strict but afaik we don't have any specific rules for political parties, we just use the same criteria as with all organizations or all subjects, so not having "won" seats is not a problem, after all, most readers don't care why a party has seats, they just want to find information about the party. As for the party in question, I don't speak Swedish, so I cannot really assess the sources and whether they establish notability but just having sources is usually sufficient to avoid speedy deletion. If you believe a deletion discussion is warranted and are insecure of how to start one, just ask and I'll make the necessary edits for you. Regards So Why 07:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I leave that to Hannibal or somebody more experienced with the procedures here. I guess the notability for political partys are stricter on svwiki, since we have a history of bad experience with the use of sv.wikipedia as a base for political propaganda. Ideologies that aren't given space in broad public media, use other ways to promote their ideas. We have had discussions on how to handle these problems with the coming general election in Sweden 2018. Such periods are often troublesome at svwiki. Personally, I am not interested in the ideology-part at all here. I am more interested in the statistics... -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can see there are no Reliable sources for this: 10 sources, out of which 4 (no 1-3, 10) are the party's own blog, 2 (no 4 and 6) are the same opinion website (both articles are unsigned), 1 (no 5) is from another opinion website (albeit one run by the state television company, and it's also unsigned and is one sentence long), 1 (no 7) is a pundit blog, and the final two (no 8 and 9) are links to databases that any organisation can get. So we can probably establish that they exist, but noone else seems to be interested enough to write about them. I think this is a pretty clear example of trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. As Innocent wrote, they've launched an attack on Swedish Wikipedia to try an "get" an article. I know that may not account for much here, what happens on Swedish Wikipedia, but I can see very little relevance to this article and no reliable sources. I hope that clarifies the situation. //Hannibal (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Innocent bystander and Hannibal: Thanks for the clarification. Would one of you like me to nominate this for deletion? Regards So Why 13:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, please. :-) //Hannibal (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citizens' Coalition. Regards So Why 14:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Administrator review

Template:Administrator review has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Elisa Jordana

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Elisa Jordana. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 06:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Draftifying stats

Just thought of what might be a confounding variable for your stats if you are still keeping track of them: WP:PAGESWAP. It works by moving the initial page to Draft:Move/NAME without leaving a redirect. Its become the default tool for page movers when executing round-robins, so I'm not sure how much noise it would cause. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Thanks for the note, although the SQL query I used to create the stats (https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/21131) already filters out moves to Draft:Move/ since round-robin swaps are not moves to draft per se. If you are interested, JJMC89 has set up his bot to create reports on draftifications at User:JJMC89 bot/report/Draftifications. Regards So Why 05:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah. I was unaware of what you were pulling, and when I saw it yesterday for some reason it triggered a lightbulb! Glad you'd already had it sorted out :) TonyBallioni (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

9 years of adminship

Wishing SoWhy a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Nine years already? Gee, time flies. Thanks for the message!

Regards So Why 17:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

protected page

I have a great article with credible materials and references to add to the Arman Vino page, But this page is closed and I can not add content. Please help. Hejazi.sina123 (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC) My account is 31 days old and I have done 13 edits, but my account was not automatically approved according to Wikipedia policy. Hejazi.sina123 (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

You are autoconfirmed but the page you mention has been protected against recreation. Btw, you did not happen to have other accounts, did you? Regards So Why 20:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: I started using Arman Vino page with the previous account, but since I did not know Wikipedia rules, my account was blocked and I created a new account, but this time I've followed the rules of Wikipedia. Is there an opportunity for me to make the page again?Hejazi.sina123 (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I see. You should really request an unblock of your old account instead of sock-puppeteering. Do that and I will see if I can help you with your request afterwards. Regards So Why 17:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

AKD Group

Hi, AKD Group AfD result closed by you as a "Keep". The matter was never relisted to generate more comments and none of the responses provided references that demonstrate notability and meet the appropriate guidelines to establish notability. I opened another AfD shortly thereafter bringing this point up but it was closed with a "Procedural Keep" and noted that DRV was the correct way forward. Part of the DRV process is first of all to simply discuss the original result with the editor that closed the matter. (slaps forehead) Which is something I didn't do. If possible, can you please reopen the AfD for the following reasons. There were ony three participants in total, and more importantly, no proper arguments were put forward to demonstrate notability (based on policy and/or guidelines). Furthermore, the references produced all fail the criteria for establishing notability WP:NCORP as noted by OP. Thank you. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi there HighKing. The discussion was not relisted because consensus already existed and relisting is not a way to circumvent that. One editor proposed deletion, two people disagreed. References were provided by Mfarazbaig - that the nominator disagreed that they were sufficient to establish notability is not a reason to relist the discussion or close it as delete. With all due respect to the editor who closed the second AFD, per WP:DRVPURPOSE, DRV should not be used to repeat arguments already made in the first AFD (which is what you want to do). Feel free to take it to DRV anyway, maybe I was wrong after all, but per WP:DRVPURPOSE#1 the correct way when you disagree with the outcome is to wait some time and then renominate. Regards So Why 17:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Like you, I'm not at all sure what a DRV is supposed to achieve. If I were to make a case there, I'd have to make a case based on your close as Keep: "How can consensus have existed between 3 participants with one disagreeing with the other two and the existence of "contentious debate"? A "No Consensus" close might have been more appropriate?" Do you think you might reopen the AfD and relist and see if a consensus emerges, especially given the fact that the 2nd AfD has been closed down and I'm really left running in circles on this. If it was a close thing (in that the references were close to meeting the criteria for establishing notability), I'd drop it, but the article and references are so poor!! -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, however, as you admit, this was at worst a mistaken "keep" which should have been a no consensus but never a delete, so I think we can agree that DRV would not lead to deletion. Reopening the AFD after a second one was closed by a different editor is a non-starter as well. That would just be too confusing and also, I see no reason to because like it or not, the discussion had a result, just not the one you like. As I said above, give it some time and then renominate it if improvement is still impossible. After all, there is no deadline. Regards So Why 09:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree, thank you. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017

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

Administrator changes

Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem

Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.

Technical news

You can now search for IP ranges at Special:Contributions. Some log pages and Special:DeletedContributions are not yet supported. Wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*) are also not supported, but the popular contribsrange gadget will continue to work.

Arbitration

Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Biased Rfc Wording

Your wording for the RfC on Template talk:Unreferenced

In 2010, an RFC at Template talk:Refimprove (archive link) was used as a reason to remove the addition of a {{find sources}} style text in this template. Even then, some people in that RFC advocated adding a finding sources text to this template. Now, after seven years have passed, I propose again that we add such links to the template (test example: Template:Unreferenced/sandbox) because they make it easier for new and experienced editors alike to find sources easily. Regards

is biased. Specifically (1) "Even then, some people in that RFC advocated adding a finding sources text to this template". and (2) "because they make it easier for new and experienced editors alike to find sources easily"

The reason why this is biased is because the RfC was a snow in favour or removal and you have not mentioned that. The second is an opinion. Add it to a support as nominator if you wish but it should not be in the RfC.

It is also bloated by "Now, after seven years have passed" you have mentioned that the last RfC was in 2010 even those who have problems with remedial maths can take 10 away from 17 so that phrase it not neccessary.

I am making this request under WP:RfC#Statement should be neutral and brief and under WP:RfC#Suggestions for responding "If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template." if you do not change the wrording as suggested then I will add "an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question". -- PBS (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi there PBS. I do admit I think you might be a little bit biased yourself, seeing as you both started and closed the last RfC. I don't see a case of SNOW in the last RFC, nor does any policy force anyone to mention this even if it were correct. I also see no problem with mentioning that back then some people who opposed such links in {{refimprove}} argued for them in {{unreferenced}}, that is just a fact. As for the other part, you are correct. Nevertheless, I have completely reworded the question and removed my supporting text from the lede. I don't think it was necessarily problematic but I don't see any reason to fight over it. Regards So Why 10:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Mike Sutton (criminologist)

Dear Sir,

it's a great shame I missed the discussion on the deletion status of the biography page on Mike Sutton (criminologist). If I had taken part, I hope that I could have contributed. Having collected 18 months worth of evidence showing multiple examples of misconduct by this individual, atrocious research abilities and extensive abuse of fellow academics, I am disappointed to see his personal page removed from the deletion list. Comprehensive refutation of his claims against Darwin and Wallace, plus many of his "myth busts" are presented via 3 websites: Sutton Who?, Natural Histories, and the Patrick Matthew Project.

Sutton has been aggressively trying to get his ideas onto Wikipedia for years, taken on different anonymous accounts (there is a record of his sock puppetry), and has an anti-wikipedia editors hate campaign documented on one of his several blog sites.

Sutton is very much driven by ambition and pride. His Wikipedia page fuels his egocentricity, more so than it should considering it was entirely his own composition until recently, when I began following the flagged recommendations for the page, and edited some of the self aggrandisement. However, the page should be removed as it was created and written by him at the outset, and remained so for years. Any statement of importance or significance of his research is solely his own inflated opinion of himself, or selective cherrypicking from more critical sources than he is willing to admit.

As evidence that he was the sole author of several pages created to forward his agenda and raise his profile, he kindly lists his Wikipedia page and others he has created under his publications section on page 21 of his 25-page CV. There is no question that it goes beyond the impartial outlook supposed to be enforced on Wikipedia. Please can we have another look at this case?

Thank you and best wishes, Jfderry (talk) 12:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jfderry: I think you misunderstand our guidelines. Whether the subject's research is "right" or "wrong" is not relevant, only that he is the subject of coverage in multiple reliable sources (see WP:GNG and WP:BIO). The more other people write about him, the more notable he gets, no matter how flawed his beliefs might be. So talking negatively about him cannot and will not change anything, on the contrary. If you believe the page contains mistaken information that cannot be verified in reliable sources, fix it yourself. I see no reason to revisit the deletion discussion which had established editors on both sides simply disagreeing (which is why it was closed as no consensus). Regards So Why 13:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Much obliged for your response, but I must challenge your assertion that Sutton is, "the subject of coverage in multiple reliable sources". There is but one on that page that mentions him by name, rather than referring to an area of study in which he has been involved, or is not a self reference, or his own Internet Criminology Journal. The single example is a reference to his supposed innovation, the Market Reduction Approach (M.R.A.) and so should be on that dedicated page alone, not on Sutton's personal page. All else are mostly links to his blog posts. I submit to you again, please reconsider this page for deletion: the prevalence of self-promoting references and opportunistic promotion is no surprise, the user is a known fraud (sockpuppetry), and providing him Wikipedia presence (which I remind you, he set up, and lists on his CV as a publication) lends him an appearance of authority with which to influence the public in order to spread his misinformation. There are real consequences to his being wrong, but I can deal with those outside Wikipedia. Meanwhile, please take a closer look at those "reliable sources". Thank you again Jfderry (talk) 03:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jfderry: I'd like to help you but you misunderstand my role in this. I merely determined the consensus (or lack thereof) in the discussion, I don't judge the reliability of the sources myself (if I did, it would disqualify me from closing the discussion). If you believe you have new information that disqualifies the sources, you can renominate it for deletion but be aware that such renominations might be swiftly closed if you do not articulate new arguments. Regards So Why 07:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Thank you for this, because I think you've confirmed that I was following the correct procedure - I'm never too sure when it comes to Wikipedia. The page you point me to, I have visited before, in trying to find out what could be done. It guides with this, "Ask the closer about your concern. Be polite, and do not assume that they know exactly what you have been thinking." I apologise if I further misunderstood your rôle in this, but were you not "the closer"? Sincerest apologies if not, my ignorance most definitely. But, if you were, perhaps we are both to discover something new about this process :)) Now, the next stage says if I think you / the closer "wrong", which is overstating the case; lacking information is not being wrong. However, for the purposes of Deletion review, I do have to declare, you / the closer in error, which includes not having all the means for the appraisal, "Deletion review considers only cases where the closer was in error in evaluating the arguments", but that is a collective outcome for the group. Nothing personal. Please, would you advise proceeding in this manner? Thanks again. Jfderry (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jfderry: You are on the right path. The "closer" (or closing user) assesses the consensus of a discussion by seeing which side managed to make a more convincing argument based on policies and guidelines. Unfortunately, when it comes to notability, this oftentimes means judging whether the coverage provided is considered "significant" since "significant" is not a fixed value. In this case, there was no agreement about that, which is why "no consensus" was the only possible outcome. The correct way to go forward if you believe there are new arguments to be made is to renominate it for deletion and try to convince more editors of your assessment. Regards So Why 20:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Excellent, succinct and clear. Thank you. I think there is good reason to pursue this as the coverage presented is not independent of the individual's actions. It is therefore tantamount to self-publicity. Again, no surprises there. Thanks again Jfderry (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: I 'had a sleep on this', and I'm not going to contest the outcome after all, but thank you for your previous guidance. You did a good job at assessing the consensus, it was an even split, although the relative representation of Sutton's notability within the literature was wrongly reported - for example, where a list is provided, out of about a dozen citations, only two were not Sutton pimping his own wares. However, I can't raise a Deletion Review on that basis as it should have been questioned during the debate, nor will it prove worthwhile to demonstrate that most of his publication record since 2013 is undermined by some horrendous mistakes. It's a wonder he hasn't been picked up on them, because his assertions on the back of that work are extremely serious, vindictive and defamatory. There is also his falsification of data and fraudulent use of the literature entwined in this, and difficult to separate, but it all contributes to the record of his misconduct. It would also be churlish to insist the personal page be removed because, if/when properly edited, and all the self aggrandisement excised, what ought to remain there is a very short list of perhaps two references, from two decades ago, that get repeatedly used as a convenient "source" reference within a subset of criminology. Those couple of references account for the vast majority of his notability, and a lot of it is generated by the same handful of academics, again, including self-citation by Sutton. I have yet to go that far back to check the validity of his work, and I actually hope I stop before then; myself and colleagues only ever intended to refute his claims about Darwin, which are mistaken, through erroneous research, misinterpretation, deceit and dishonesty, despite which he is actively pursuing further opportunities to mislead the public. Having conned the local heritage group committed to preserving Matthew's legacy (now partially fabricated by Sutton), he seeks much larger audiences with production of a TV programme. *facepalmforest* Jfderry (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Adoption request

Hi, first I would like to explain how I reached at your user talk page. I saw you at Wikipedia:adopt-a-user and wants to take you as my mentor to learn new thing about wikipedia. I would like to work in the areas of vandalism, new page patroller and wants to maintain wikipedia a reliable source of information. Thanks – 1997 kB 13:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@1997kB: Hi there. Thanks for your interest. I have to be upfront that I am no longer active at the "front lines" of new page patrol but more in the second line (reviewing deletion requests and such) so if you want to focus almost exclusively on those areas, someone who works there more than me might be a better choice (like J947 or MrX from the adopters list). I'm of course still happy to help with any questions you might have. Regards So Why 13:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Thank you for these suggestions. I'll contact them. – 1997 kB 14:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I won't be available any time soon because I'm in the midst of a home renovation project. I'm happy to answer the occasional question on my talk page though.- Mr X 18:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@1997kB: I'm happy to mentor you, although I'm taking a small wikibreak because I'm on holiday right now. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 01:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I am a new user at Wikipedia, trying to help Wikipedia be a better place by adding information and creating pages for uncovered topics. For example, I am trying to make a page about "bomb jokes", but I can't do this without help, so I'm asking you to adopt me and be my mentor. Thank you. WarriorFISH (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Warriorfish: As I said to 1997kb above, vandalism fighting on the front lines is no longer my forté, so I cannot really help here. I also am not active in WP:SPI, so I cannot help with that either. I'm happy to have a look at any draft you create although I am not an avid article creator myself. Regards So Why 09:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

main page

Lol, why did you nominate the main page for deletion? NikolaiHo^☎️ 01:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Because I could

Joking aside, I had used an old user script that mistakenly parsed an article's title as "" and "" is the equivalent to Main Page. I was already punished for that. Regards So Why 07:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion Help: Dayo Israel

Hello SoWhy. Good work on your contributions to the English Wikipedia. I am contacting you basically because you are one of the most resourceful editor have seen and so look up to you. I recently craeted a page as paet of my project to put young Nigerians doing exploit in their various sphere and who meet notability criteria on the English Wikipedia. But earlier today user:Gbawden nominated it for speedy deletion based on being promotional. Please, i need you to take a look at the article and help review it. Thanks Kaizenify (talk) 09:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kaizenify: Gbawden was not wrong to consider the page containing language to promote the subject. You are lucky that Lopifalko took the time to fix most of it to shield it from speedy deletion. He might also be amenable to help you more if you ask nicely. You should definitely work on the page some more, especially strengthening the sources. Many references are to the subject's own homepage which is not a reliable source. Regards So Why 10:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Yes I am happy to help towards making the article more compliant. -Lopifalko (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Thank you so much once again. it was worth it afterall contacting you for help. Special thanks to Lopifalko for aswell taking time to fix it considering that am not perfect and will take into considerations any corrections, concerned or advice raised. I will add more references now but pending the time; can the speedy deletion be removed?? Thanks Kaizenify (talk) 10:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kaizenify: I have removed the speedy deletion tag because the article no longer meets the requirements after Lopifalko's cleanup. However, this does not preclude any editor from nominating it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Btw, you do not need to use {{re|SoWhy}} on my talk page, I automatically get a notification for new messages here. Regards So Why 10:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help especially for your very friendly and accommodating response. However, I saw the multiple issues raised on the page and have started fixing it. First, I have reduced the no of images and added more independent reference. So will the tag be remove automatically when all this is done? Kaizenify (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kaizenify: You should find all the answers you seek at Help:Maintenance template removal. Feel free to ask again if not. Regards So Why 13:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Seeking a second opinion

I wish I could have made that alliterative. Anyway.

SoWhy, you have absolutely nothing to do with the situation I am about to describe, but you are a fellow admin whose opinion I trust when it comes guideline interpretation so I thought I would seek you out. Buried in this enormous, crazy, madness-inducing ANI report is the revelation that Winged Blades of Godric went back to an RFC that he had closed multiple times and amended the reasoning for his closing decision. I was somewhat flabbergasted by this, as it appears to fly in the face of the completely unambiguous wording of the discussion closing template. Godric replied by telling me that post-closing changes to rationales are completely commonplace. I'm flabbergasted by that, but rather than make an issue of it, I thought I'd seek out an uninvolved opinion. Thanks in advance if you take the time to read and respond. A Train^talk 10:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@A Train: Imho, it depends. Clarifying a previous rationale because people had more questions without changing the result is - if it's made clear that the text was amended / changed - okay. I myself have done so a couple of times as well. The {{archive top}} template's wording does - as I understand it - not forbid the closing user from changing the closing text. The template states "The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it." (emphasis added). The closing rationale is not part of the discussion, so it is not included in this prohibition. On the other hand, changing the result of the discussion later is not acceptable because if you later realize that you closed it incorrectly, you should not be the one touching the RfC again but let another, uninvolved editor close it. I hope that helps. Regards So Why 10:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks SoWhy. Godric, I hope you get a chance to read this, too. A Train^talk 15:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

A Train, read! It appears that I was more-or-less correct in my reply. W.r.t to the RFC at Talk:Turkey, my point is that, there are no technical difference between my two versions of closure, except that the latter came up with insertion of the word very weak, a more detailed rationale and a crystal-clear way-out.In a nutshell, the statement was entirely excluded after my first close, it is still as of now.There was a disc. which was just non-bindingly scheduled to happen but I made both the disc. and the medium of the disc. as mandatory.It's sad though that Seraphim will not be taking part in it.If, I was completely or even partially going against my closure after my re-thought(s), I would have just vacated the close! That being said, for future cases, I would like to know both your and SoWhy's opinion about my closure in this case and if that could have been improved.Regards:)As a side-note, your description of the thread was spot-on!

Also, I wouldn't mind if could avoid using phrases such as is the revelation that..... for they seem to imply (to me) as if I had been trying to hide something for a while:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 12:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

And, at any case, would any of you be willing to close the ANI thread?There does not appear to be anything more to discuss.Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 12:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup Guidance

Dear So Why, 12 Inches of Sin was brought to my attention. Many artists refer to the page and I have been receiving many inquiries regarding its status. I see that there is a notice that this may require a cleanup. I am unfamiliar as to how this may be done and by whom. Can you please advise? I saw your name as a person who recently worked on the article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:3200:156:4495:325E:AC7D:2F37 (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry, I can't help you, I did not edit the article, I just close a deletion discussion about it and removed the notice. The tag was placed by Rentier, he can probably tell you more about why he did it and what is to fix. Regards So Why 19:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

aedp delete WHY? rebuttal.

Dear so why I wrote the aedp article and I missed the discussion to delete it by two days. Below is my rebuttal. Please reconsider. Where is the article. I don't think I have the complete as it is document on my computer, as i did a lot of the work in the edit space. Please read my rebuttal. Hi Cordless Larry I just saw that aedp article is being discussed to be deleted. I didn't get a notification and just saw this now. Obviously I am very upset, as that is a year of work for me and I had addressed the issues that are under discussion already. I would like to address the issues but I don't know how to join that discussion. If I go to edit, there is no room for me to write, and I don't want to move anything around. But here goes if you can please share:

1. Of course I am a student of AEDP, how else could I understand the topic. And yes, diana fosha mentioned me in a footnote in her book but that was to acknowledge that I had written up the transcript of a session she showed, that she had in fact written in the article and that was my transcription! So I am her associate to the extent that a student is an associate of a principal.

3. There are quite a few newer references that further support the notability of aedp since the article was posted a year ago.

4. how can it be written like a personal essay and also be written as a textbook

it can't be written any way other than it is written because i have followed the advised wikipedia practice of writing from the point of view of verifiable and notable sources. the sources are highly conceptual and research based, so of course its going to follow that tone. Believe me there is no way i can think of to make the content any more accessible without "dumbing it down." I think if I were to try to read an entry on sub-particle physics, i would not understand it,but I would be disappointed in wikipedia if it was written for a 6th grader to understand (as is the reading level that is advised for many non-scholarly writing).

5. students/therapists/psychotherapy researcher, psychologists are coming across AEDP in many writings. In the last year the citations to her work have increased significantly. I think turning to wikipedia to understand what this is,

is what wikipedia is for. I love wikipedia. And what i wrote is exactly what I would have wanted to find.

6. why is someone hopping on coherence therapy - its a reference.

7. that AEDP is one of the model of therapy considered mainstream and of importance and promoted by APA on its website, with a dvd, is testimony to its notability. And as someone said, if Diana fosha is notable, why isn't aedp?

8. Please do not let them delete AEDP article. Carrieruggieri (talk) 01:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC) Carrieruggieri (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

9. as to WP:neutral point of view: there is not a section on critique because contemporary psychotherapies are not critiqued without the perspective of decades to reflect upon the theoretical zeitgeist of the times. We are in an emotion focused era. Maybe in 20 years we will be neuro-focused. For example, cognitive therapist are being critiqued because they are being re-examined from the new emotion focused perspective.

10. Everything I have written comes from a reference. there is not a single sentence that is not reference. How can it not be neutral.

11. all sources lead back to fosha: that is why there is a fosha article that you accepted. She is the originator. There are many article that are written about aedp that are independent and contribute something original, but of course they are going to reference fosha.

12. Much is being made of the word institute. What if it was AEDP school?

13. Much is being made of the quality of web-site. Really?

14. No AEDP and other integrative therapies will not be collapsed. The effort in writing the aedp article was in demonstrating its unique contributions and its unique theory.

15. most of the references are secondary and 3rd party. Few are primary. so I contest that critique. You cannot know what is secondary and 3rd party unless you know the literature I suppose. Isn't there someone here who has a psychology background?

Carrieruggieri (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi there Carrieruggieri. The reason why the community decided that a stand-alone article (the subject is still covered at Diana Fosha!) is not justified was mainly that the article was not written from a neutral point of view but from the point of view of someone who supports Fosha's theories and because the article contained original thoughts and synthesis not fit for an encyclopedic article. That said, most people did agree that the subject was notable if the writing can be improved to meet the standards of Wikipedia. Your work is not lost but can be found in the article's history, so fixing the text can easily happen. I advise that you contact some of the editors who participated in the discussion for more guidance. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with such topics at all but some of them might be able to work with you to create a valid stand-alone article. Regards So Why 08:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For you excellent explanatory close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EatOye (2nd nomination).Cheers :) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 11:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It's been a while since I got one of these, so it means even more to me.

Regards So Why 12:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Inanna Sarkis

Hi SoWhy, the page Inanna Sarkis got deleted because there was not enough reliable sources. Now, I can find articles on Forbes, Tubefilter and other sources about Inanna Sarkis. She is not just a Youtuber, but also participated in a big screen movie. Can I get this page back? Thank you. --Nexthh87 (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

sorry, I'm currently on vacation and am not able to access my main account but maybe if I ping Ritchie333 or TonyBallioni, they can help you :-) Regards So Why Mobile 19:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Nexthh87, if you want I can restore the article to your user space for you to work on. I'll have to warn you that none of the deleted versions addressed the concerns of the AfD, so you will need to improve them with the sourcing you have found before returning it to the mainspace as an article. If you want me to do this, let me know on my talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

AfD

The article Global Challenges Foundation has been put through AfD again just days after you closed the previuous discussion. For me the user should have discussed this on the articles talk page. I thought I better tell you, otherwise let the AfD proceed I guess. But in my opinion it is too soon to instigate a new AfD just days after the first AfD was closed.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello SoWhy:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– Linguist^un Eins ^uno 19:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Yeah ...

... Regarding my RFAR question, I didn't really think that through, and I realized it immediately after posting it, but since I had pinged people I left it there. Also, the AfD was closed after less than two days, which was sort of an oddity in itself. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: No worries, glad that is cleared up. It's probably an unnecessary side-show anyway. Regards So Why 15:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SoWhy. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Ai Kayano.
Message added 11:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

request to move

a request for deleted article Zarb-e-Sukhan to move on my sanbox, which was bad faith nominated for deletion.

how was it possible to delete it in the existence of 5 most reliable sources? can you plz, help me in this regard to review it again with neutrality and fairness. i paste here the comment of

A splendid poetry collection. Daily Times.

This source, which is authored by Amjad Parvez, sums up their poetry career along with discussing their book (Zarb-e-Sukhan) comprehensively.

Urdu, surviving against odds. Daily Rising Kashmir: This source discusses the subject comprehensive along with discussing one of their books. BTW, the newspaper is in editorial oversight.

I can't read Urdu. So, I will only discuss their reliability & comprehensiveness, but Urdu-speaking participants are invited to translate & summarize their content at the article's talk page: The multiple sources – [1], [2], [3] (dead link) – published by the Daily Jang definitely show notability. NitinMlk (talk) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ehsan_Sehgal_(3nd_nomination) )

- plz, read these sources.

- http://archive.is/qcbx7

- http://archive.is/oNeJe

- http://blogs.thenews.com.pk/blogs/2013/02/a-literary-look-at-2012/

- http://www.roznamadharti.com/holand_news/?view=002521.gif

- http://archive.is/bvmhS thanks. Moona Sehgal (talk) 10:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Moona Sehgal: I'm unsure what you are requesting from me. The article Zarb-e-Sukhan was just redirected and the revision history still exists if improvement can be made to address the reasons why it was redirected (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wise Way). Unfortunately, I cannot overturn such a discussion. You will have to make your case at Wikipedia:Deletion review although I suggest you first request the help of a user familiar with the region and/or such topics. Such users can probably be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan/Members or Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry#Participants. Regards So Why 11:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi. I am considering going through the Wikipedia adoption program.

My primary focus area is in articles about local history and geography and such. My particular focus right now is in Clyde, Ohio, and I'm rewriting a large article that is concerned with it.

The reason I'm going through the adoption program is because I have not reached for help from other editors in the...like...2 years that I've been here. I read Wikipedia articles a lot in my daily life, and I'm very enthusiastic for it. Wikipedia is basically my downtime. I'm an avid reader of the site, so I think I know the tone quite well. (Compared to others around me IRL anyway) Wikipedia editing is like my calling, you know. Academic writing and history have always been my primary talents.

Anyway, apparently I am not as familiar with Wikipedia's processes as I thought I was, because, as one adopter said, it is extremely hard to get a grasp on them because there are so many and it is so complex. Often in dispute resolutions I have acted inappropriately, especially lately. Whenever someone deleted stuff I added I got very angry. I probably shouldn't have done that. My personality has been very irritable lately, since I have had a lot of stress in my life lately (personal stuff).

Mostly due to my autism disorder, I greatly lack maturity and discipline for my age. I'm like 10 years behind most people my age in that respect.

Anyway, since I am so enthusiastic about Wikipedia, and think it is one of the best collective projects in the world (honestly), I want to learn how to become a much more formal editor here. I wonder if the adoption program can help me greatly in that respect.

I would apologize to the users I've been irritable with, but there were so many of them. Well, I wasn't mean to them and I didn't like insult them personally, but I felt I was rude and highly informal. Basically a temper tantrum at times. My irritability is certainly nothing against them; it's just a personal issue. In discussion, I sometimes present the tone I say things in in ways I don't exactly mean them.

I want to get to the point where people take me seriously here.

Anyway, that's it. I hope you consider adopting me. Thank you. :)

(BTW if adoption can involve chatting on IRC, I would like that. If not it's okay.) Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 07:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi there PseudoSkull. I'm happy to provide guidance and a place to ask your questions, although I cannot provide IRC because most of the time I'm online at work or sporadically at home and thus not able to chat. Beginning with that, I suggest you change your signature. I'm not overly fond of emoticons myself but the more important thing is that it's highly confusing still using your old username when signing on talk pages. Regards So Why 19:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you SoWhy. I changed my signature to its default. I will definitely ask you questions if I have concerns. I am changing my user page to inform of this adoption. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll be here

PS: You really should start using edit summaries. They allow others to understand what you have been doing without having to check your edits. Regards So Why 16:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Phillip Thompson Townsville

Hi SoWhy, I seen where you declined the speedy on Phillip Thompson Townsville, so I was going to cleanup the manual of style errors in it, but noticed that it looked very familiar. It's a copy of the same article I cleaned up last week Phillip Thompson. Both are created by different editors but the new one is obviously copied and pasted, right down to a small typo. I've never come across this before, and was wondering if you know what to do about this. Thanks. Cmr08 (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cmr08: Interesting. Seems the latter one has been deleted once before in 2018 and was created by the same SPA who now created the former. I assume both editors are the same person or closely connected (WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT). As for the articles, I redirected the former to the latter. Considering the SPA-pushing, you might want to check whether he is actually notable (and not just significant enough to pass A7) and take it to AFD if not. Regards So Why 06:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Mister wiki case has been accepted

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 15, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Short stub articles

I don't quite understand why there are many very short articles on Wikipedia that are labelled as stubs, and then it says "you can help Wikipedia by expanding them." Reading Wikipedia:Stub, it says:

A stub is an article that, although providing some useful information, is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, and that is capable of expansion. Non-article pages, such as disambiguation pages, lists, categories, templates, talk pages, and redirects, are not regarded as stubs. If a stub has little verifiable information, or if its subject has no apparent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article.

But then we have articles about geographical locations, which have no apparent notability guidelines other than the fact that they exist AFAIK. There are a ton of geographical location articles that are labelled as stubs, such as North Monroeville, Ohio that I created recently.

So, the page encourages you to "expand" such articles. But, for articles of this type, you can't really expand them any further without adding unsourced content or extremely irrelevant information or something. The three sentences on that article are the only ones I could even come up with, as every other book or whatever that talks about N. Monroeville only briefly mentions it in a list or something like "Mr. Smith is from North Monroeville" or "went to school in North Monroeville", which are pretty irrelevant for an article.

So why should there be a label at the bottom that encourages people to "expand" an article that can't be expanded much, if any, further? I don't think North Monroeville will be anything more than a stub, ever. I do understand that there is always a possibility that new useful references could come for a topic such as these in future times, but isn't it more likely that a person could see "expand" as a way to add irrelevant or useless content to the article?

It's just a curiosity and something that's been bugging me lately. Thanks. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's wrong to label them as stubs. Expanding them while following the rules is helpful to the project and as you say, it's impossible to rule out the existence of more sources because in most cases they will not be indexed online. As for geographical articles, the relevant guideline is actually WP:GEOLAND and it does say that populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable (emphasis added) for these reasons. Remember, articles about towns etc. can and should contain notable landmarks, notable occurrences, notable companies, information about demographics and history as well as geography etc., so in most cases there is indeed some information to expand it with, it's just not yet included. And we are writing an encyclopedia after all: People expect to find information about populated places in an encyclopedia. Regards So Why 13:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Declined CSD

Can you explain your reasoning for not deleting Avisheak Paudel while a similar article I tagged, Satyam Rana, was deleted? It easily fails WP:CCOS, specifically the significance part. Nihlus 22:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus: (talk page stalker) I think the significance comes from coverage in (I assume) reliable sources. Adam9007 (talk) 03:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

That, and the claims of winning multiple awards for his work. And since I can't read the sources, I preferred to err on the side of caution. Feel free to take it to AFD or PROD it. Regards So Why 06:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

So you're saying Jujutacular was wrong in deleting Satyam Rana? Nihlus 06:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I was not saying anything like that. WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a valid argument at XFD and it's not a valid argument here. I would probably not have deleted it for the same reasons as stated above but I can understand why Jujutacular thought A7 to apply in that case. Regards So Why 07:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

This isn't an XfD; I was merely asking how your interpretation of the guideline compared to another instance. Thanks. Nihlus 21:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

No, but my point was that the same logical rules apply to CSD as well. If one article is deleted and one is not, then both decisions can still be correct. For example, winning two different awards (with no articles) and having more sources that talk about one subject (like the one I declined) is sufficient to fail A7 while having only few sources of questionable reliability (like the one deleted) might make the article eligible for A7. As I said, *I* would probably have declined both but the one deleted was an edge case in which both decisions are justifiable. Regards So Why 15:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Re:

Hi, actually that's not a true medal and sources are really really weak. --Vituzzu (talk) 11:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Vituzzu: Our policy has a low standard and credible claims that a person is somehow more significant or important than an average person is sufficient to pass this standard. That she might not meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO or another notability guideline is grounds for regular deletion but not speedy deletion and my decision to decline the latter does not preclude the former. Regards So Why 11:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I know they are pretty easy to circumvent, above all with non English "apparent" sources. I'm simply a bit tired of the time I have to waste in cleaning the gibberish this particular sockmaster spreads on different wikis. --Vituzzu (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Vituzzu: well, WP:CCS, in regard to the speedy-deletion policy, isn't actually about circumvention, rather it prevents misuse of a powerful tool. The idea is, that it is better that we as a community spend a few extra minutes collectively considering notability the moment there is a chance that the encyclopaedia loses a potential article :) on a lighter note, if as you say the creator of the article (provided it hasn't been substantially edited by others) is a likely sockmaster, then WP:G5 may apply. Take care! Serial Number54129^{...speculates} 19:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I wrote "circumvent" since I think it's pretty easy to hide "blatant" non-notability with a series of "tricks". Anyway I choose not to use db-g4 since I locked those accounts just two days ago. Anyway, I'm now waiting for the PROD ;) --Vituzzu (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Even better idea, let's lock them here. Oh, you didn't. Why not? But true, the PROD is the next step. Take care! Apologies to SoWhy for commandeering his page :) Serial Number54129^{...speculates} 21:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017

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

Administrator changes

Joe Roe

JzG

Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.

Arbitration

Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is open until Sunday 23:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC). There are 12 candidates running for 8 vacant seats.

Miscellaneous

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

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

CSDH

I noticed you're using CSDH - I updated it recently but don't really use it all that often. If you notice any major glitches let me know so that I can correct them. Thanks! Primefac (talk) 12:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: Thanks for the update, I will have a look out for any problems. Alex still seems around but I think he is no longer maintaining it. Regards So Why 13:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Your SNOW close of the Glenn Tamplin DRV

It took me a few times re-reading your close to understand that including the closing admin refers to the admin who closed the original AfD. My first thought was it meant the admin who closed the DRV, i.e. you. Perhaps you could update your statement to clarify that? Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I had not considered that as a potential way to read it but it does make sense. I think this should be enough clarification. Thanks for pointing it out. Regards So Why 15:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Why are people mean?

I'm considering quitting the encyclopedia. It doesn't seem like people think my work is good, even when I do my best.

Worst of all, though, some aren't nice about it at all. Some people today just told me that my hard work is full of BS, and that was pretty offensive and I took it personally. They didn't just say something like "it needs improvement". No they just said the whole thing is a lie. It was about my draft here, and it happened on talk page Talk:Clyde cancer cluster. All articles I write are based on my perception of how Wikipedia sounds, since I've read a lot of articles here; entire articles at that.

I'm probably more active on Wiktionary, or at least I once was. I've seen a few rude people on there (not gonna name names, since I forgive them now anyway), but damn I haven't ever seen anything like this before. I don't even know what to say. Isn't blatantly saying that someone's 2-year lengthy work is complete garbage a pretty decent way to scare away contributors for good? I must say it's sort of working, because I'm thinking about it now. I'm not trying to soapbox you or start drama or anything (even if I'm not succeeding at not doing that), but I need advice because man I feel like shit. I don't even know what to say or do anymore. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

If I had a patent remedy against unfriendliness, I'd have used it years ago. Wikipedia is a microcosm that mirrors real life in certain ways; although the average editor is more male and educated than the general populace, the attitude problems you can see in real life are happening here as well. Considering the actual example, I don't think the editor you interacted with was particularly offensive (although they sounded a tad too frustrated). There is a difference between insulting someone and criticizing someone's work. The latter is a cornerstone of this project because only by collaborating to remove mistakes or add missing information the project can grow. I suggest you finish your draft and invite other interested editors to check it out and fix what they deem problematic without you judging them immediately. Consider asking for more input at the relevant WikiProjects so it does not end as a discussion between two editors; more people knowledgeable in this area might also help find solutions were you two can't see them. In the end, I have always found that staying polite and assuming that every critic has just the project's best interests at heart works best.

Regards So Why 17:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 25

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 25, October – November 2017

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

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

Read the full newsletter

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

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

	Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year 2018!
	Thank you for all the hard work and effort you put into Wikipedia. God bless! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Protection for repeatedly created A7 article

Hi,

I've noticed that when a page is Create protected for persistent meeting of A7, the summary is Repeatedly recreated A7 article − non-notable person, organisation, etc.. I think (for obvious reasons) this is misleading and should be changed. Is this within our power to do so, or is this something that can only be done by those of higher authority? Cheers. Adam9007 (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Adam9007: Nope, there is no standard text, just whatever the admin protecting it entered. I for example usually use the Twinkle default which is just "repeatedly recreated". Just ask the admin who protected it to not use this text anymore. Regards So Why 20:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's a commonly used summary, which led me to think it's a standard one. I think many admins would get the wrong impression if I were to ask them to not use that text. Adam9007 (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I can't remember seeing this summary used in recent times. Can you provide an example? Regards So Why 07:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Aima Baig. Salted with that summary only a couple of days ago. Adam9007 (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. Most people use Twinkle or other tools these days but it has been added back in 2013 to MediaWiki:Protect-dropdown by an admin who unfortunately believes notability is relevant. I removed that part now for those admins still using the interface to protect. Regards So Why 11:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Good Omens (TV series)

On 27 December 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Good Omens (TV series), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that it took a posthumously-sent letter from Terry Pratchett to convince Neil Gaiman to create a Good Omens TV series without him? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Good Omens (TV series). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Good Omens (TV series)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/From Me Flows What You Call Time

What more could I have done to prevent a close that says that I "didn't really mention[] any policy- or guideline-based argument [as to] why this was to be deleted rather than kept, merged or redirected per WP:ATD." Did you need me to identify ~~DEL12~~ DEL14 and explain the relationship between WP:N DEL8 and ATD, and the difference between content and topic, and that DEL8 is a topic deletion, not a content deletion, whereas ~~DEL12~~ DEL14 is content deletion? What we have here doesn't fail DEL8, but it fails WP:N and ~~DEL12~~ DEL14. Unscintillating (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, you explicitly !voted to redirect, so you have expressed your opinion already that this is at least a likely search term that should be covered in the author's article, did you not? You went on to explicitly cite WP:CRYSTAL's directive that such subjects should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable (emphasis added). Both - redirecting and merging - are preferable to deletion per WP:ATD when possible alternatives, so my summary seems correct. Not sure why you mention WP:DEL12 which applies to files. Regards So Why 18:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Delete and redirect is far different from redirect, see WP:Guide to deletion, which states that its purpose is to delete the edit history. Delete and redirect requires administrator tools so is an action within WP:Deletion policy, whereas Redirect is an action within WP:Editing policy. Unscintillating (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry about the mistake with DEL12, I meant WP:DEL14. Unscintillating (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I see your point that Crystal#5 mentions a merge, but since I advocate that the existing sources are useful, I'm not dismissing using them to merge. And it is puzzling for WP:NOT to make a merge argument, as that is generally a function of WP:N and WP:ATD. Unscintillating (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
My !vote mentions "speculation" and WP:BKCRYSTAL. The last line of Crystal#5 states, "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content."...and WP:DEL14 is for "...content not suitable for an encyclopedia". Unscintillating (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Back to my first question, how did I not state this sufficiently in my !vote that it was neither acknowledged nor weighed as a deletion argument? Unscintillating (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm still confused, sorry. You are saying "since I advocate that the existing sources are useful, I'm not dismissing using them to merge" but that does not work when the article's history is deleted because then no one can access those sources anymore. I read your !vote as I explained above, advocating to retain the information at another place, which makes sense both under WP:CRYSTAL #5 (which continues with "Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic") as well as WP:BKCRYSTAL which only determines whether a book should have its own article, not whether it should be covered at all. So while you did !vote "delete and redirect", the policies and guidelines you cited in favor of your !vote actually support a (selective) merge or redirect without deletion. That was my point. I'm sorry if my rationale was unclear in that regard. On a side note, WP:WHATISTOBEDONE (which is a part of WP:NOT most people sadly overlook) actually mentions "Turning the page into a redirect, preserving the page history." as a viable solution for WP:NOT violations. Regards So Why 10:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

But I bolded the words Userfy sources on request in my !vote. Why would I specify that the closing admin userfy sources if I expected them to be available in the edit history? This is completely consistent with a DEL14 delete vote to delete bad content, a failure of WP:N, and without a DEL8 topic deletion.

As to your point that my prose to support the !vote is weak, I agree, but this doesn't mean that I couldn't make a better argument. Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Email

I have seen your email and replied. Sorry, I have generally been away for Christmas and New Year (and then got side tracked with my eldest on Raspberry Pi program and Matt Parker's "cool maths videos") so haven't done much work on WP. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of David Koresh Superstar

The article David Koresh Superstar has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Album by band deleted as not notable, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Indelicates

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sandstein 13:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Erika Csiszer

Hi there

I've removed the PROD template from the Erika Csiszer article, after adding a reference that verifies that she is a Venezuelan TV host of the show on Telemundo. For good measure I added a basic infobox, a couple of wikilinks, and a category. Don't know enough about her to do any more. Hope that's ok. Tt 225 (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tt 225: Usually, that's fine, however, please be aware that BLPPROD templates can only be removed when you add a reliable source (newspaper or similar, not the TV station's own page), so in future, please try to do so. If you speak any Spanish, GNews might help with that. Regards So Why 08:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

My Spanish extends not much further than "yo no hablo Español - ¿Hay alguien que hable Wikipedés?", but Megalibrarygirl self-identifies as living in the bilingual El Paso area and can generally perform the Heymann Standard on an article at AfD blindfolded at 50 paces. (It's the military training). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

LOL. I'll see what I can do with the sources, Ritchie333. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Point taken, and thanks for the pointer to the policy on reliable sources. I knew I'd read something along ehse lines but couldn't remember the details. I was in two minds about whether the channel's own webpage was good enough but thought it was sufficient to verify the basic facts about this subject. I did look for secondary sources and saw some on Google, but no habla enough Espanol to figure them out. Thanks. Tt 225 (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

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

Administrator changes

Muboshgu

Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned

None

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.

Arbitration

Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Alex Shih, BU Rob13, Callanecc, KrakatoaKatie, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned.

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

Delete / restore / move of Brian McTernan

Hi SoWhy,
Happy new year! I was wondering what the story is on article Brian McTernan. Why was his page moved here? I started an article about him because he is at the top of the Wikipedia:Most-wanted_articles. He is mentioned in 100+ articles in Wikipedia! Regards, Mill 1 (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mill 1: That's basically the reason I got interested in it. Unfortunately, the deleted page was in a sorry state ([1]), lacking references, so it needed improvement. I moved it to my userspace to work on it, unfortunately, I can only do so when I find some time. You are most welcome to help with that though! Regards So Why 10:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

PS/NB: The problem with the subject is that there is a huge amount of name-checks in reliable sources but so far I could find scarcely any coverage about him. He definitely is notable but if you can find some sources that actually cover him and not bands he produced, it would be awesome. Regards So Why 10:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for clearing that up. I found these resources online which you undoubtedly found yourself already:

[2], [3], [4], [5]

Good luck and I will be monitoring your progress! Mill 1 (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Wyeret

It only took 1 minute for User:Clain123 to re-create this article after you deleted it. I've re-tagged it for speedy deletion, but I doubt deleting it again will stop this user from re-creating it, especially as their user page and user talk pages both contain copies of the article. Iffy★Chat -- 09:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I deleted and salted it and deleted the userpage as well as leaving them another warning. Let's hope that they get the hint. Regards So Why 09:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Tre'von

It was deleted but I'm pretty sure it was a redirect that got hijacked (i created it). Can you confirm and undelete if possible. Thanks WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@WikiOriginal-9: It was, although I don't think it was a really plausible one, redirecting to Trevon. Maybe it should rather redirect to Tre'Von Johnson? Or at least the latter should be mentioned at Trevon. Because otherwise people have a hard time finding that page if the redirect exists. I'll restore it and add another mention to the disambig for now. Regards So Why 08:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your work at SPI. Much appreciated. Montanabw^(talk) 18:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

All I did was block an obvious sock, didn't even know about the LTA until later. Regards So Why 08:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Project Zero question

Is there a Wikipedia policy I'm unaware of in favor of citation consolidation or that discourages primary sources? I thought more citations and primary sources made the article more interesting, but I may be missing something.

Thanks for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiiscool123 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Wikiiscool123: Actually, there is, see Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Primary sources are not per se discouraged but secondary sources are in most cases preferable (not only because primary sources are easy to misuse). As for the other part, I don't think there is an official policy on citation consolidation although there is Wikipedia:Citing sources#Bundling citations and Wikipedia:Citation overkill, a guideline and an essay. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. PS: Please remember to sign your posts using ~~~~ when posting to talk pages such as this one. Regards So Why 19:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Need help to save an article

Dear respectable SoWhy, I respect your contribution on Wikipedia your are such a great Administrator here who really know his job & give value of other new volunteers work and support them to grow. truly I am a fan of your work , when I will get a chance to serve as Administrator definitely you will be my inspiration.

Now i come to the point without taking your precious time I need your help to save an article Krimo Salem I think it meets Wikipedia criteria, you valuable action will be helpful for my wiki contribution.

Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumitmpsd (talk • contribs) 16:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

An odd question

Hi. I've been thinking about an article I made with less than a year of experience, 2016 Australian school bomb threats, and I'm not sure if it warrants an article. I feel like a case for WP:NOTNEWS could be made. I don't even think an article could be written about Evacuation Squad either, as they've only received a small amount of coverage outside this event: [6] [7] [8] [9]. (Never thought I'd be considering AfDing my own article). Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: While there are some people who believe anything that is in the news should be deleted, WP:NOTNEWS actually explicitly mentions routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities as examples for content not to include. While WP:SUSTAINED and WP:PERSISTENCE do not specify a certain timeframe, I think a story that received coverage for three months passes this test that is supposed to mainly filter out events that only received coverage on and around the time they happen which does not apply here. HTH. Regards So Why 12:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Thanks. I was a little bit conflicted with whether NOTNEWS would apply or not, and more generally, whether the topic is notable. I'm glad you gave me reassurance. While I'm here, how's the SpellForce 3 article coming along? Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: No worries; also, I think sources like [10] demonstrate that the event caused further discussion on how to handle such threats in future. As for my draft, thanks for asking. I'm still waiting for David Fuchs' to give me some feedback but I think it's quite good already if I may say so. Regards So Why 13:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The White Company (retailer)

Hi,

I saw your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The White Company (retailer) about editors not considering WP:ATD, and thought I should say that that's nothing compared to this AfD. In fact, it's because of discussions like that one (it's not the only one) I've been wondering for a while if we're missing something with regard to WP:ATD? Maybe consensus is that it doesn't apply to speedy deletion? Of course, that directly contradicts WP:CSD, which as good as says that it does, but still, I can't help but wonder... Ta. Adam9007 (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Since ATD is part of the deletion policy, it logically aplies to all forms of deletion. The AFD you provided looks more like a failure of following WP:BEFORE, which still is fairly common depite it being part of the AFD page. But as always, the fact that some people don't follow policy does not mean the policy does not apply. Regards So Why 07:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it's more than a WP:BEFORE failure: 2 editors (one of whom is an admin) insisted it should have been A7d per WP:INHERITWEB (this is the discussion linked to by the nominator in that AfD). The fact that 3 editors (2 of whom are admins) said it should have been an A7, after 2 merge !votes at the AfD tells me that they consider WP:NOTINHERITED to be the applicable guideline (WP:INHERITORG and WP:INHERITWEB are guidelines) to CSD, not WP:ATD (I say not WP:ATD because they can't both apply to A7 as both notions logically contradict each other). And that's by far not the only discussion where that was said: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 and there are probably several I've missed. I've also been accused of making up my own notability criteria (yes, notability) by declining A7s. Also, too often, if a page is not A7d per WP:NOTINHERITED, it's deleted via PROD or at AfD rather than merged or redirected. I agree with your point that just because a rule is ignored doesn't mean it should be or otherwise doesn't apply, but I daresay there are those here who would take a rule not being followed as an indication that it does not apply, or that a rule being applied (when its letter gives no indication that it is supposed to) as evidence of consensus for its application. Do you reckon a bit about WP:ATD should be added to A7? A10 has one. Cheers. Adam9007 (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

As much as I like Iridescent as an editor, their views on deletion certainly do not always line up with policy (which ATD, unlike NOTINHERITED, is). I know you had your conflicts with such taggings but that can't be helped. I, too, had them and it's just what happens when you try to follow policy with users who believe they know better. The lead of WP:CSD already contains the sentence Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, reverted to a better previous revision, or handled in some other way (which I know supplemented with a link to WP:ATD). Since no page should be deleted that can reaonably be handled otherwise, I don't think adding it to A7 specifically makes sense because ethen people might argue that it does not apply to criteria that do not contain said warning. Regards So Why 16:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not just a few people. For example, see N0thing. 3 editors said A7, but when it went to AfD it was kept. GF Biochemicals could easily have been redirected, but was speedied under A7 (as was 1st Century Bank), which was practically endorsed per WP:NOTINHERITED at DRV (if I recall correctly, it was only restored because someone wanted to improve the article, not because it didn't fit the criterion). The article this discussion was talking about, if I recall correctly (and I might be remembering wrong), had at least 3 redirect targets (I didn't know which one was best), but I'll let the discussion do the talking. And these are just the ones I can remember off the top of my head. If amending A7 is not appropriate, maybe WP:NOTINHERITED should be? People clearly consider articles with clear merge/redirect targets to meet A7's wording, or they wouldn't be A7d. I have also been castigated for boldly redirecting A7-tagged articles (I don't always do it because that would send out the wrong message). I'm actually kind of surprised that nobody objected to me boldly merging TEDxTrondheim (which was tagged for A7) to List of TEDx conferences. And it's not just CSD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Camp is another example of it at AfD. Judging by some of the comments, it was a typical merge/redirect candidate (indeed it was, but it was at the closer's will, not by consensus). Adam9007 (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

In the end, you might note, that it's often the same people. RHaworth for example has a long history of A7ing pretty much everything he sees, no matter how wrong it is (which explains how he has 378k+ deleted pages). As for the other discussion you linked next, the problem is this: WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT only works, when a) the subject is or should be covered at the target and b) there is a clear redirect target. That's why Chrissy actually was right when it came to The Titanic Players: There is no reason why this group should be mentioned at any of the universities' articles since theater groups are a dime a dozen and even if they were, redirecting to one of the articles would have been a disservice to readers, who would be left under the impression that the group only exists at university X. Thus, in such cases, redirection is actually not a valid alternative. As for WP:NOTINHERITED, it's part of WP:ATA, which by definition only applies to deletion discussions. Regards So Why 07:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I thought there was more to the article than that, but maybe I'm remembering wrong. But isn't it a bit queer that speedy deletion depends largely on who (and by that, I mean which admin) gets there first? Now I come to think of it, there are other parts of it that are also somewhat subjective: WP:FAILN (how close is "closely" related? ask different people and you will likely get different answers) and WP:ATD-R (what's useful to some may not be useful to others) for example. I thought all this stuff was meant to be objective? If it was, I think much of this could have been avoided. Adam9007 (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Apropos very little, one of you might like to add this to your list of declined speedies :) Cheers, >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@SoWhy. This was not a joke. I was expecting the speedy to be declined as slightly spammy but with encyclopaedic potential (IIRC); instead of which it has been deleted. Wot gives? >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 19:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Sorry, I somehow missed your message. Well, the page does fit WP:U5 with the user apparently writing an article about themselves (and they are apparently not Shilpi Sharma). Not sure why exactly you expected a decline here, the deleted page contained little you wouldn't expect in a LinkedIn profile or similar. Regards So Why 20:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Adopt-a-user - your availability

Hello. Could I ask you to check and, if necessary, update your availability details at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters, please?

I've been updating that page, plus the list of over 100 people seeking adoption (which I've now stripped down to around 20 active editors genuinely seeking help.

I've been working to identify those Adopters who are currently available, and those who haven't been active on Wikipedia for a while. But I don't think the bot has been updating correctly, so a manual check from you would be really helpful. I've also made some suggestions and a few edits to make life easier for newcomers. I've put some of my observations down in answer to a recent post about inactivity of some Adopt-a-User Project contributors. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Arabian Gulf Cup

Hi SoWhy. I would like to know your reasoning behind reverting my redirect of Arabian Gulf Cup to Gulf Cup of Nations. There are only two competitions called Arabian Gulf Cup which are the Gulf Cup of Nations and UAE League Cup. As WP:DISAMBIGUATION states, "There are three principal disambiguation scenarios, of which the following are examples" with the third example being "The page at Michael Dobbs is about the primary topic, and there is only one other use. The other use is linked directly using a hatnote; no disambiguation page is needed". That is the situation here, as Gulf Cup of Nations is the primary topic and UAE League Cup is the secondary topic (if you look at 'What links here' on Arabian Gulf Cup you will see all the pages that link there are meant to link to Gulf Cup of Nations, whereas none link to UAE League Cup, showing that Gulf Cup of Nations is the primary topic, plus Gulf Cup of Nations has far more notability in independent reliable sources than UAE League Cup as a search engine test shows, and the Arabian Gulf Cup is only a temporary sponsorship name for UAE League Cup whereas it is a permanent official name for Gulf Cup of Nations). As WP:DISAMBIGUATION states, there is already a hatnote on Gulf Cup of Nations page to the UAE League Cup. Thus, Arabian Gulf Cup being a disambiguation page seems to go directly against Wikipedia policy at WP:DISAMBIGUATION, and I ask you change the page back to being a redirect to Gulf Cup of Nations. Thank you, Hashim-afc (talk) 10:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Hashim-afc (talk) 10:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: I merely restored the version before you and others started edit-warring about it. I have no preference and I do not care about this at all. Please use the talk pages to discuss this issue with others and then implement the consensus you have found. Regards So Why 10:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not about preference, this page is going directly against Wikipedia's policy at WP:DISAMBIGUATION (See Here: Is there a primary topic?) as it stands, and now no one is able to correct it for at least a week due to the page protection. I would appreciate it you could move it back to being a redirect, thus following Wikipedia policy. Hashim-afc (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

And may I add that before the edit warring, it was originally a redirect as Arabian Gulf Cup was the title of Gulf Cup of Nations a few days ago and became a redirect after the page got moved to Gulf Cup of Nations. User:Bijanii made it a disambiguation page without any consensus, hence why I changed it back to a redirect. This started a back and forth before you reverted my edits and now it is a disambiguation page despite no consensus for this and it going against Wikipedia policy. Hashim-afc (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: Wikipedia:Disambiguation is merely an editing guideline, not a core policy. Even if it were violated, a week will not really harm the project more than your edit-warring. And yes, I saw the first edit to the page, however, that was not the redirect you were edit-warring about, so it does not count as the status quo ante. Point is, protection is not a sign of support for a certain version but a tool to stop disruption, mainly caused by you in this case. Both you and Bijanii violated WP:3RR multiple times over about this, so I would have been perfectly justified to just block both of you from editing instead of protecting. I decided to give you both the chance to convince others in a discussion instead, so I suggest you use your energy on that. Regards So Why 17:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 26

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 26, December – January 2018

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

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

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

Deleted draft log

Hi SoWhy, Greetings. Where could I find the deleted draft log either it was more than 6 months without review were done or during the time of creation, the subject/title had not created but when pattroller reveiw the page and found out the title page has been created for such deleting draft page - I understand only admin could read the content, but I wonder could I locate the log to know the creator name and the date of the creation. Kindly advise and thanks in advance. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: Sorry but deletion removes all information about a page from the public eye, including who created it when. If you tell me which page you are interested in, I'll see if I can provide you with the info though. Regards So Why 18:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi SoWhy, I am looking for the pages below, which I believe they were on "deleted draft pages" which now have been created later. I would like to know (1) who was the first creator (original creator) (think they are in deleted draft log) (2) when it were created and (3) if I could have the contents please.

Also, how would I able to find who was the creator prior the pages below were cut and page to a redirect page. If you could find them as an admin let me know, if there is a way I could find out, then please advise me how to do so. Thank you very much (1) Junior Albini and (2) Sean O'Malley (fighter)

Thank you very much. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 19:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: Sorry for sounding daft but what exactly do you need me to do? I cannot find any info that those pages were deleted or had existed in Draft: space (I tried the first three). Again, I'm happy to help but I am apparently too stupid to understand the request (TPSs to the rescue?). Regards So Why 20:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi SoWhy, I am so sorry for not explained my request in details. The pages above I believe the above pages where copied from the original creators to and pasted them to current page editor. The above samples are a fraction of the pages I gather and there are many many more. See the here [11] for Danielle Taylor (fighter) page. Since the above pages were first created for review from May 2017 onward, some of them would be on deleted and would be in the deleted draft log. I have no permission to view the log and see the content, that is reason of my request for assistance. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 20:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

It would probably have been better if you had just told me about the related ANI and that the problem is with a certain editor. That would have been useful to know. There might be a way to search the logs for all pages containing a certain string but that probably needs to run on a replica database. I tried a MySQL search but it took ages for a single page.

However, while the content of pages is hidden from public view, the deletion itself is not, so all you have to do in most cases is to prefix the page title with Draft: and you can find Draft:Magomed Bibulatov, Draft:Darren Till and Draft:Alexander Volkanovski based on your list, all three created by Semper liber. If you have more such pages, maybe you might want to ask at WP:BOTREQ if someone can run a bot to match a list of pages to the deletion log for drafts with the same name. Regards So Why 21:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi SoWhy, Thank you for the assistance, the ANI link here WP:ANI#Gaming the system - vandalism user:Rickyc123. Sorry that it is a long log, as had repeating myself on the message, as I am not sure I explain myself well on the ANI. I will check on the pages using adding the "draft" and see what I could find out. And I am still trying to figure out how to find the redirect link (you would understand what I am saying about 'redirect" after you have read the ANI. Thank you very much SoWhy. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 19:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I found that myself. Unfortunately, I am at a loss on how to help you further. Maybe some of my talk page stalkers have better ideas; barring that, maybe Fish and karate or Fram who commented at ANI have better luck. Also pinging @Anthony Appleyard who is probably the most experienced admin when it comes to history merges. Regards So Why 09:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: Of the 18 pages listed above, which of them were created first in draft? Many pages were likely directly created on mainspace. For example, the first edit of page Hayder Hassan looks like a first attempt, rather than created elsewhere and copy-and-pasted across, and its log ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Hayder+Hassan ) shows that that page has not been created elsewhere and moved (unless by copy-and-paste). Or the user may have got through the early stages on a file on his own computer. Similarly with page Chase Sherman. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi SoWhy, Good day and thank you for trying to assist. @Anthony Appleyard:, I will compile a list and will forward over when it is done. Some of the subjects above (the 18 above) have been attributed to the original creator (who had created the drafts first and was copied and pasted by Rickyc123 later to make his own). Will write again. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: I have made a start. So far, Hayder Hassan, Chase Sherman, Shane Burgos, Aiemann Zahabi, Niko Price, Justin Ledet: no draft file (deleted or undeleted) found if I prefix "Draft:" to the name. Magomed Bibulatov: is also described in the earlier edits in Draft:Magomed Bibulatov, but at 15:26, 9 May 2017 that draft was rejected "Declining submission: adv - Submission reads like an advertisement (AFCH 0.9)", and its later edits are about Gerald Meerschaert, and there is no edit continuity between Magomed Bibulatov and (the older edits in) Draft:Magomed Bibulatov. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@CASSIOPEIA: Draft:Magomed Bibulatov looks odd. It starts about Magomed Bibulatov. At 3.05 27 May 2017 its main editor (User: Semper liber) deleted the man's name, and gradually changed the page, until at 6.50 27 May 2017 he inserted Gerald Meerschaert's name. At 02:21, 31 May 2017 Draft:Magomed Bibulatov was speedy-deleted "G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page". (The mainspace page Gerald Meerschaert started short from a stub and not by copying from anywhere else.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Anthony Appleyard:, First of all thank you for checking and assistance, I run through the the below and with what I could find the copied and pasted by User:Rickyc123 have all histmerge and properly attributed to original creator by you. I have added more info on ANI page and will include you in the discussion as you have properly histmerge the pages for it might not be polite to use SoWhy talk page here. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 21:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: I have looked through the rest of the list of article names above (from Darren Till onwards). Draft:Darren Till existed (deleted) and I history-merged it to Darren Till and the join matched. Draft:Alexander Volkanovski exists (deleted), but Alexander Volkanovski is a new start from a stub and was not started as a copy-and-paste from Draft:Alexander Volkanovski. The rest of the list from Paulo Costa (fighter) on have no corresponding Draft: files, deleted or undeleted. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Anthony Appleyard: Thank you. Your finding is same as I. I have further info added on the ANI page and need your help to look at it and advise- see here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Gaming the system - vandalism user:Rickyc123 where I put them in tables format. Thank you very much. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Help wanted with DYK

After all these years, I've finally written a serious article from scratch and am thinking of proposing it for DYK. Would you be willing to look at User:RoySmith/American Bank Note Company Printing Plant and give me your thoughts? Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Wow, that looks better than most stuff I could write. I made some minor fixes but I go to run in a few minutes, so I'll have a closer look in the evening when I return. Regards So Why 10:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Okay, I read the article now and while most of it looks good, I have some minor suggestions:

Be careful with citation templates. {{cite web}} makes no sense when citing GBooks, use {{cite book}}. I replaced one of them for you to show you what I mean. Also, most of the data in a GBooks link is garbage, you just need the id= and pg= parameters
On a side note, consider using Citoid to generate references automatically, it usually manages to find the right template and fill in most of the stuff. Citoid is standard in VE but can also be used with the source editor using this very handy userscript.
The lead needs to summarize the article better (MOS:LEAD). I get that the article is about a building but you should also give readers key information about the subject's use through the times, so that they won't have to read the whole article to find out that the building is no longer used as a printing plant (for example).
While I personally am a fan of what red links can do, check the links in the article for whether those subjects are actually notable enough to be deserving of an article (and just haven't got one at the moment).

That's all I can think of at the moment. Make no mistake, I think DYK eligibility is already achieved at this point but fixing a few things never hurts, right? HTH Regards So Why 20:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll work on those things. At this point, I'm kind of on a roll, so I'm willing to spend the time to tweak and polish things before I submit. I'm also struggling to understand the details of Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide, to get past the QPQ requirement. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@RoySmith: No problem. Don't worry about QPQ btw, per WP:DYKRULES you don't have to do a review if you have fewer than five DYK credits. So just concentrate on the article and you can always start reviewing articles later if you feel like it. Regards So Why 21:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, cool. Years ago, I nominated 74181 for DYK, and I seem to remember the QPQ exemption was just a first one free thing. Did it change to five sometime later, or am I just mis-remembering things? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, can't help you there. I was not really active for some years and the QPQ was in place when I returned to active editing in its current form. According to the most handy wikiblame tool, it was added with < 5 in 2011 [12]. Regards So Why 21:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've fixed up the cite web -> cite book stuff, and cleaned out a lot of the red links. For some of them, I created stubs or redirects to make then blue. Some, I unlinked. And a few I left as red links because, as you say, they seem like they might legitimately be good topics for articles. When I first got into wikipedia, red links were much more common, and in fact encouraged :-) I also re-worked the lede to make it more MOS-friendly. Thanks again for all your suggestions. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Posted at Template:Did you know nominations/American Bank Note Company Printing Plant

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

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

Administrator changes

None

Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardized editnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.

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

kindly save the article

Dear Sowhy Nikhil_chandwani article was deleted previously because of unreliable sources but now it has reliable references and fulfill Wikipedia criteria kindly take a positive action as per Wikipedia guidelines Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truembp (talk • contribs) 10:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Truembp: Articles deleted through articles for deletion discussions can only be restored by the deleting administrator or a review at WP:DRV. For both ways of appeal, I strongly suggest that you first create a draft of the article that includes the new reliable sources you have so others can decide whether restoring the article is the right thing to do. Regards So Why 13:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The Flying Cats

May I ask on which basis the article about the band was considered non credible or irrelevant? I indicated various information sources and for me that is credibility. When there is a link to a website like reverbnation.com what makes that not credible??? I was in the process to add even more info but I can't write everyday for wikipedia. I am away to be a wikipedia expert but I never seen a band page where someone explained why a band is important. A band is important for the fact that it exists, make concerts, make registrations, write original songs, is recognized, is part of a musical genre, plays well... and a miriad of things like these that would be boring to write in the tesxt. So in your opinion I made an article using my fantasy? Best regards... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmrecords (talk • contribs) 01:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mmrecords: ReverbNation is, as our article on them indicates, something akin to Facebook for musicians. It's not a reliable source but a platform anyone can claim anything about their band. Which you did. Bands or musicians are considered notable if they verifiably meet one of multiple criteria outlined at Wikipedia:Notability (music). They are considered significant or important enough to survive speedy deletion if the article indicates that one of those criteria might be met (like being signed to a notable label, playing at a notable event, having received radio airplay etc.). Your article did not do any of that. I'm happy to take another look if you can prove that this band received non-routine coverage in reliable sources (newspapers, books etc.). Regards So Why 13:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Crash course in speedy deletion

Thanks for being patient with me on this. I was reading through the speedy deletion criteria but clearly I failed to catch some important nuance. Looks like 2 out of the 6 stuck though. I'm reading through your essay on speedy deletion right now. Best, TaxAct2018 (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@TaxAct2018: Yes, speedy deletion is one of the most complex areas of the project, which is why I was kind of surprised that you drove in headfirst. Especially A7 is much stricter than people think and for good reasons (see [13] [14] [15] for examples why). If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Regards So Why 13:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The Woodmont Company

Hi there, just to say thanks for taking action on my CSD and letting me know. Best wishes, Tacyarg (talk) 09:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tacyarg: You are welcome. If you are interested in working with speedy deletion, I compiled a handy and hopefully helpful list of essays at User:SoWhy/SDA. Regards So Why 09:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, I spotted your link above and will have a look. Best wishes, Tacyarg (talk) 10:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Page Deletion Review

Dear SoWhy.

I hope that you are well :)

Around 6 months ago, the Wiki page which I published was deleted (after being live for 16 months), with the reason being lack of Notability for the business it was about. However, as a multi-million-pound company which has been trading for over 18 years, and with more notable sources being found online over the last 12 months, I believe that the page could be reactivated and updated.

New notable sources include:

PayPal https://www.paypal.com/stories/uk/60-seconds-withgardensite

DigitalJournal http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/3477899

HortWeek https://www.hortweek.com/gardensitecouk-celebrates-18th-birthday/retail/article/1443907

This was the Deletion discussion thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GardenSite

I would really appreciate if you could take a look, and pass on any comments that you may have that would help to get the article re-published. I have re-wrote an updated version of the wiki with the new sources but will wait to hear your thoughts.

Many thanks for your time and consideration. Kind Regards, David Coton (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@David Coton: Unfortunately, neither press releases nor articles based on such releases are sufficient to establish notability. What you need are independent sources, newspaper articles or books written without input by the company itself. If you like, I can restore the article as a draft for you to try and work on it but without new sources that fit these requirements, you will not be able to have it restored. Regards So Why 15:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of David Crowther

You deleted this page in July 2017. The reason seems to be that the level of citations of my work was insufficient but the only evidence seems to be that someone looked at GS and found only up to 366 citations for the any article / book. Well I just looked and the first one on the list has been cited more that 500 times and the next 2 more than 500 between them. If you actually count all the citations to my work it comes to many thousand - I got bored doing this so I gave up. There are extensive references in other sources. I accept that it is a problem as there are several D Crowther's publishing but with 50 books and 400 articles published there are bound to be plenty of citations! And there are plenty of references to me in newspapers etc around the world.

So I think this deletion was hasty and ask for it to be reconsidered.

Signed 82.3.145.86 (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The main reason for deletion was that notability couldn't be established because there were not enough reliable sources to verify the content in the article. If you can provide me some links to such sources that cover the subject in detail, I'm happy to consider your request. Regards So Why 15:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Cameron Beccario

Could you restore his home page. He is definitely notable. I am atmospheric scientist and oceanographer from Scripps Institution of Oceanography and his work has clearly an impact on these fields. There are now reference in scientific literature (including very prestigious ones such as "Science") which reference his work. Many weather outlets and newspapers are suing his displayes. It initiated several spin-off such as windytv or vendusky. Once you restore it, I will add more material and references. Puncinus (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Puncinus: I'd like to help but since the deletion was a community decision, I cannot overturn it unless you can provide me with a reason why the decision was incorrect. I can, however, restore the page as a draft for you to work on but unless you submit it for review before restoring it to the main article space, it will likely be re-deleted per WP:G4. Do you wish to have the page as a draft? Regards SO WHY 17:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

It was a very weak "community" decision based on one vote. I have already provided you my reasoning: his work has clear impact in atmospheric and oceanography fields. There are now reference in scientific literature (including very prestigious ones such as "Science" magazine) which reference his work. Many weather outlets and newspapers are using his project. It initiated several spin-off such as windytv or vendusky. I would even go as far as to state that his is a model case of a person who, working outside, developed a very useful project which energized field of scientific visualization. You can restore the page as a draft and I will see how to make it stronger. Puncinus (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Puncinus: The number of participants is irrelevant. If three people agree and no one disagrees then that's enough. However, that does not mean it can't be restored if you can prove that the reasons for deletion were incorrect. As such, I have restored it to User:Puncinus/Cameron Beccario for you to work on. I suggest you tag the article with {{submit}} once you are done to request review by an experienced editor. Regards SO WHY 09:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank You so much user:SoWhy

Thank you so much for defending the article M.O.G Beatz. I just want to throw some light on this article I created. M.O.G Beatz is a renowned music producer in Ghana who of late done so many hits in Ghana. He is qualified for an article on Wikipedia.

I am much grateful for your help and once more, thank you for defending this article. I understand the Policies of Wikipedia, though am just 9 months and few days here, i love creating and editing more articles relating to Music (especially African Music)

I am here to learn new stuffs on here. Please share some new ideas with me here.

Have a nice day,

Blooms.

@Bloomshouse: I didn't "defend" it, I merely declined to speedy delete it. If you wish the article to survive, you should provide more reliable sources significantly covering the subject (not just passing mentions). Otherwise, it might be deleted using a deletion discussion. PS: Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages such as this one by using ~~~~. Regards SO WHY 11:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

About Jimmy Palmer's section within the List of NCIS characters-article.

After you added the anchor to Jimmy Palmer's section within the List of NCIS characters-article, another editor (AussieLegend) changed Jimmy Palmer's section's name within said article again (see here). So at the time of this writing, links that worked before (such as List of NCIS characters#Dr. James "Jimmy" Palmer) does not (at the time of this writing) link to the relevant section of the List of NCIS characters-article (at least for me). Given your message on my talk-page earlier today, I would like to know what you think should be done about that. You asked me earlier to stop changing the links manually, and I don't want to "dig myself deeper".Heart of Destruction (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Heart of Destruction: Just add the former section name to the {{anchor}} template at the beginning of the section, after a |. That way you can create HTML anchors for any of those links. Regards SO WHY 18:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Spitshine Records

Before I tagged it as a CSD, the article was deemed deletable per- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spitshine_Records but never removed.Hoponpop69 (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Hoponpop69: Per WP:SOFTDELETE, a "soft delete" outcome equals a WP:PROD outcome. If the page is restored (as it was here), it equals a contested PROD. Such articles are no longer eligible for speedy deletion because then admins can no longer assume that deletion will be uncontroversial (which is required for most speedy criteria, especially A7). My decline was of course merely based on the subject not meeting the stricter criteria of WP:A7 but that would have been another reason not to speedy delete. Feel free to renominate it for AFD but before you do, see if you can't get your hands on the source first (maybe through WP:REX (excerpts can be found at GBooks)) and/or other sources. Regards SO WHY 08:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

the gr8 INJUSTUZ of Wikipedia (see the most recent blockees talk)

I think we may have another from this master...see here CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

"Great injustice" is usually code for "Damn, you caught me". Thanks for the heads up. =) Regards So Why 20:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

the purpose of RfA

So I responded to your question. I'd prefer to believe that yours is an honest question about my position. I'm frustrated because the sentence after my statement about inclusionism was specific to the abuse of GNG and I gave examples. The fact that you asked your question regardless troubles me because it raises the concern that your question was really a ill-thought effort to publicly discredit my opinion, as harassment of opposers at RfA is both common and tolerated. I generally don't AGF because I hate all of humanity and therefore would never think the best of people, which is why I'm struggling with your question. I don't have any animus against you and I hope you don't have any animus against me. Lourdes deserves a fair up-or-down vote and it doesn't help if the audience gets into fist fights in the comment section; I don't want to be a part of that and neither do you. Perhaps my response has therefore settled the matter. If you disagree with my expectation that nearly all AfDs should end in deletion, then we have a difference of opinion which does not require discussion. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 11:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: I never try and "harass" people. I think I can say that when I ask a question, I do so because I'm interested in the answer. You posted three examples where you saw an "abuse of GNG", which itself is a problematic phrasing because it implies that the user you disagree with acted maliciously which Lourdes certainly did not. The more problematic part of your comment though (and which is why I asked the question) is your conclusion that because this user has !voted "abusively" in these three instances, they are "too inclusionist". It is problematic because, as you concede, it seems to be based on the fact that you believe that an AFD should usually be a death sentence for an article and not based on Lourdes' actual contributions. Even the examples you picked are problematic.

The first one (which I closed, so I am probably not objective about it) contained not a single policy- or guideline-based argument to delete. Lourdes opined to keep and provided ten sources, at least half a dozen of which are reliably and independent of the subject and provide significant coverage of the subject. One might disagree whether that was enough to meet GNG but it was certainly a valid opinion to have.

The second one includes a civil and clueful discussion between to editors on the nuances of WP:SIGCOV which highlighted interpretations that are held by many editors.

As for the third one, I really don't understand how providing significant coverage in multiple RS is "abuse". You might disagree with whether that was enough but it certainly was not abusive.

But that's not why I asked. I asked because looking through her delete !votes, she often (e.g. 1 2 3 4 5 6 and 7) argued for deletion based on GNG not being met, even explaining to others why the sources are not sufficient to establish notability, which is not the way I would expect a "too inclusionist" editor who "abuses GNG" to behave.

What I was trying to say (and I probably failed to do in my short comment, apologies) is that I was confused by your conclusion that three AFDs where she !voted to keep were sufficient to lead you to conclude that she was "too inclusionist", when in fact she significantly more often argues for deletion than to keep. And based on her match rate of ~95%, she has demonstrated that she is in line with community consensus almost all of the time, so it's hard to assume this will change if and when she gets to close AFDs for real (btw, based on her NACs, she closed less than 65% of AFDs as keep despite the fact that as a non-admin, closing as delete is not possible).

(TL;DR) While I'm neither assuming that I can change your opinion nor trying to, I was and am confused by your !vote because it does not seem to take into account the many many times she has argued to delete based on GNG. As such, I'd be happy if you could provide me with a more detailed explanation why you believe that she is "abusing" GNG to the point that you do not trust her to handle the mop. Thanks in advance! Regards So Why 12:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to give you a well-thought answer, but that's going to take more time then I have at present. I'll try to provide a better explanation of my rationale within a day. I apologize for jumping to conclusions; an explanation of my opposition isn't too much to ask. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

No worries. Since I don't intend or plan to convince you, take all the time you need. Regards So Why 16:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/From Me Flows What You Call Time. Lourdes claims WP:NBOOK but that guideline specifically does not "apply to not-yet-published books", which the subject is. I take no issue with the list of references; I would balk at using reportage of this stunt. In a century it's possible the manuscript is forgotten or disregarded. This is also an issue of WP:RECENTISM, as the hope that the manuscript would be published on trees chopped down 90-some years from now. DGG, Unscintillating, and Rms125a@hotmail.com were right. Lourdes just sees sources and loses her mind. Your misguided close shows that you expect !voters to unambiguously give you the letter-salad of guidelines, policies, and essays. They provided policy-based rationales you didn't even recognize.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AIOps Lourdes provides of citations including Gartner, Deloitte, and The Register. I'm not seeing GNG there with trade publications. The other citations are dataconomy.com and Trivone, each claiming to be a "media company". If you take a look at where that content got merged to I think you could agree that it definitely should not be a standalone article.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YouTwoTV An article about YouTubers; Again, Lourdes provides a bunch of links with no apparent thought to the reliability of sources. The Entertainment Tonight Canada citation, despicable celeb coverage that it is, is the best of them. Cites ionmagazine.ca, darpanmagazine.com, bramptonist.com, bramptonguardian.com, novellamag.com are all Toronto-based outfits of questionable parentage. Both the novellamag and occhimagazine.com pieces are interviews, which really takes away any sort of independence; I doubt they confer any notability. If you thnk each of those are RS, I'm sure I can find a bridge to sell you.

I don't think GNG is that low of a bar. Lourdes's NACs look ok and she does !vote delete more often than keep, but these three examples are why I oppose her adminship. She is too much of an inclusionist, even if she is largely in-step with the rest of Wikipedia, she is not what I want to see in an admin. Mentioning a "match rate" assumes that agreeing with everyone else is a good thing. Maybe the crowd is wrong, either in their interpretation of formal guidance or their opinions about what the facts are. I hope I've answered your question. These three examples aren't a comprehensive look at her as an editor but I also don't believe in NETPOSITIVE. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Chris, hi and hope you're well. You know that I respect your comments and appreciate the work you do out here quite a lot. I actually didn't expect your oppose...honestly – given that I would have expected you to just come up to me on my talk page, given me advice or even a shouting off for the AfDs where you think I was not !voting well. When you write that "Mentioning a "match rate" assumes that agreeing with everyone else is a good thing.", I wanted to write that in most AfDs, I've been the first !voter – and have not been matching my agreements with anyone. But that doesn't matter actually – you're the last person I would say no to or reject any kind of correction you would suggest. I value the points you've provided. I've taken in the issues you've raised and will surely keep them in mind in the future. Let's close this discussion here. With the warmest wishes as always, Lourdes 03:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: First of all, thanks for taking the time to expand on your comment. As for the first AFD, I will have to continue to disagree. Neither DGG nor Unscintillating provided a reason to actually delete the article instead of redirecting or merging. Rms125a@hotmail.com merely mentioned the fact that the book is not due to be published for 100 years which in itself is not a reason for deletion. As I noted in my AFD close, a keep close does not necessarily mean the subject deserves a stand-alone article. WP:ATD is a policy though and none of those advocating deletion has made a convincing argument that complete removal (without even a merge or redirect) is the only policy-based decision to reach and neither have you so far.

As I said above, my confusion came from the fact that I didn't follow the logic from "three !votes I disagree with" → "she is too inclusionist" but of course I understand that opinions might differ. For what it's worth, I - a declared inclusionist myself - have never considered Lourdes to be an inclusionist. But as she says, wiser than me, let's close the discussion here. I never intended to convince you and now that I have my answer, there is nothing more to be gained from it. Regards So Why 08:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) As an aside, claiming that Gartner or The Register are not sufficiently reliable publications to confirm notability in IT-related topics mostly demonstrates a lack of WP:COMPETENCE to judge notability in the field. That's akin to declaring that sources in WP:MEDRS can't confer notability in medical articles because they're just trade publications. If someone were to take exception to the sources provided by User:Lourdes in the AIOps AfD, it would have been techtarget.com, as their content and studies are vendor-sponsored (which may not be immediately apparent to the casual observer). I believe this seriously weakens the credibility of the whole argument. MLauba ^(Talk) 11:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The Register is sometimes reliable, but a whitepaper from something called "Moogsoft" isn't content that they have editorial control over, and I wouldn't recommend it as a source for what is, fundamentally, a buzz-word with no widely-accepted definition. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I believe you're missing the point I was making above. I'm most certainly not commenting on the AfD outcome, for which I would have voted delete or redirect myself, befitting all these endless fancy rebrandings the IT industry keeps churning out, 98% of which have no staying power. The question is whether for IT related matters, The Register and Gartner should be discounted by default because they are specialized trade publications, which was offered as grounds for Chris to conclude Lourdes was too inclusionist. He is of course entitled to his opinion, I was merely (clumsily, it appears) pointing out that the reasoning supporting his opinion was faulty. "Third party whitepaper signed by a pseudonym, even in an otherwise acceptable source, is as reliable as a NYT opinion column and cannot be considered to establish WP:N" would have been a different story. MLauba ^(Talk) 22:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018

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

Administrator changes

Lourdes†

AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V

† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

Following the 2018 Steward elections, the following users are our new stewards: -revi, Green Giant, Rxy, There'sNoTime, علاء.

Obituaries

Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Caillou Pettis Article Creation

Salutations. I was wondering if you could create a page on the English Wikipedia for actor, writer, director, and film critic Caillou Pettis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caillou_Pettis). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimplyBatman22 (talk • contribs)

@SimplyBatman22: While I am usually willing to consider such requests, in this case, I think the only correct answer is "no". With seven deletions as far as I can see (including a deletion discussion), it's quite clear that the community does not consider this peron notable enough to warrant an article. You might want to drop it. Regards So Why 10:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Peter Nicholls (writer)

On 7 March 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Peter Nicholls (writer), which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Step hen 22:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

DJ Flash Article Revisited

Hello SoWhy.

Last Year You and I had Many Conversations regarding The Removal of the "DJ Flash" Article Page. In That Time I Have located several Books, & Newspaper Publishing's With Ref. To DJ Flash (Record Producer Living On West Coast USA) You said if i Located These Ref. you would personally help with recreating the Article. So I am Once again Respectfully asking you to reconsider The Articles Removal.

Ref #1 Book "GLORY BEYOND A DARK TUNNEL" ^[1] by Minister McDuffie (Author) ... Please Read Pages 56, 57, 58, 153 & 156 (or just type DJ Flash in the "Look INside" search Bar.

Ref #2 Book "NWA -Not Without Alanzo" by Alanzo Williams (Author) ^[2] ... This Book tells the Story of NWA, Dr. Dre Ice Cube & Easy E Pre (Straight Outta Compton) Movie .. DJ Flash is Credited in the Acknowledgement Section. Just Type DJ Flash in The LOOK INSIDE search Bar.

Ref #3 News Paper "The Southeast Missourian" & "The Daily American Republic" (Poplar Bluff Missouri, USA) by Pat Pratt ^[3]

Ref #4 Book "RAP MUSIC & STREET CONSCIOUSNESS" by Cheryl L. Keyes (Author) ^[4] (PAGE 89)

Ref #5 DISCOGS.Com "Listing Of ALBUMS & SINGLES Produced, Written and or Performed By DJ Flash ^[5]

Ref #6 (Wikipedia) Major Album released on MAJOR RECORD LABEL Dist. By (SONY MUSIC) Dr. Dre "Concrete Roots" Dr. Dre (Artist) DJ Flash (Producer) ^[6]

Ref #7 2 Major Albums By Major Artist Released on Major Labels (WARNER BROTHERS DIST) "ICE T "The Classic Collection" and "COLD AS EVER" ICE T (Artist) DJ FLASH (Producer) ^[7]

REF #7 ICE T "The Classic Collection" ICE T (ARTIST) DJ FLASH (PRODUCER) ^[8]

REF #8 DISCOGS.com Major Album released on MAJOR RECORD LABEL Dist. "WESTCOASTIN" ^[9]

By (Universal Music) Ronnie Hudson ft. Snoop Dogg, Too Short, E40, Zapp Troutman  (Artists)   DJ FLASH (Producer)

Ref #9 Discogs.com Major Album released on MAJOR RECORD LABEL Dist. By (Universal Music) "The Original 2 Live Crew" 2 Live Crew (Artist) DJ Flash (Producer) ^[10]

Respectfully Submitted I Believe A combination of these ref. comply with Wikipedias standards for Notability...for an Artist, Musician, Producer etc....

 If we cannot settle this issue here and now i will seek a higher Authority by means of Appeal ..

(If their is an Appeal process I will seek to have the decision to delete the Article REVERSED.) So Please Be Fair And Impartial SoWhy Wiki-dos808 (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[wiki-dos808] 15:10 10 March 2018

I'll have a look later and see if there is enough. Regards So Why 09:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Wiki-dos808: Okay, I checked them all but they are not nearly sufficient. Any "appeal" would likely fail. The only new "source" is #1 which does contain some mentions but the book is of uncertain reliability (to be nice about it), considering that religious books are usually not fact-checked. #2 and #4 are mere mentions in a list with no further details. #3 was in the article when it was deleted. #5 is a user contributed page and thus not reliable, same goes for #6 and #7 obviously (Wikipedia). #7(2) to #9 contain no information about the subject. I'm sorry but you seem to keep misunderstanding what kind of sources we require (see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for help). Regards So Why 13:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Kevin jere

Hello,

You recently deleted an article I did. Could you help me restore it and make the page better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariebarreau23 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mariebarreau23: Your article was deleted because there was no reason to assume that the subject is significant or important. I'm happy to consider restoring it if you can provide me with reliable sources that significantly cover the subject. You might also want to first read Wikipedia:Your first article for more tips and help. Regards So Why 10:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I found out about him because he has worked with Devin Cruise who has worked Ty dolla sign and Taylor Gang. He also worked with Nizzy J who wis 1/2 of Wallis Lane . I didn’t add this because in the guidelines it sign to not be promotinal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariebarreau23 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mariebarreau23: It's not promotional to add such information as long as you are not promoting the subject itself. Mentioning why the subject is likely important enough for an article is the first step. Now, do you have any reliable sources that talk about that? Any magazine or newspaper reviews that mention the collaboration or something like that? Because when I google any of those names with "kevin jere", I find nothing. Regards So Why 13:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Kevin Jere

Okay, I’m going to find more sources. I’ll contact you once I find a good amount — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariebarreau23 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

SN Sharma DEEPAK

Hello SoWhy, The article is currently up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SN Sharma DEEPAK and the AfD template was removed by an IP before IdreamofJeanie applied A7 so can you please revert it back to revision by BD2412. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 08:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@GSS-1987: You are, of course, correct. My apologies. I missed the afd-tagging because BD2412 did not use a script to tag it. I have restored his version. Regards So Why 08:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I can understand. Thank you so much. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

[1] ttps://www.amazon.com/Glory-Beyond-Tunnel-Minister-Mcduffie/dp/1629944408

[2] ttps://www.amazon.com/N-ot-W-ithout-lonzo-history-coast/dp/069253685X

[3] ttp://www.semissourian.com/story/2166038.html

[4] ttps://www.amazon.com/Music-Street-Consciousness-American-Life/dp/0252072014

[5] ttps://www.discogs.com/artist/276204-Lee-DJ-Flash-Johnson

[6] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_Roots

[7] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice-T_discography#Compilation_Albums

[8] ttps://www.discogs.com/Ice-T-The-Classic-Collection/release/1922020

[9] ttps://www.discogs.com/Ronnie-Hudson-Westcoastin/release/4850921

[10] ttps://www.discogs.com/The-2-Live-Crew-The-Original-2-Live-Crew/release/187206

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]