User talk:BigHaz/Archive 23

The Signpost: 23 June 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Notice of deletion in an article you reviewed
Hello, eight days ago I received a notice that a page I made, Nancy Ruth (singer) had been reviewed by you, which I assume means that it meets Wikipedia standards. I am now notified that a deletion discussion has been opened. Can you tell me how this is possible? Thanks for your help.--Ane wiki (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would refer you to the comment made in response to yours at the AfD. While this isn't a case of "meticulous" or otherwise, the fact of a review being done doesn't necessarily mean that an article is to be kept for all eternity. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks for the barnstar. My short answer is that it's sourced to the level that it should pass anyone's queries of notability (per WP:NSPORT, rivalries aren't automatically notable in and of themselves, so they need to pass the general notability guideline, which this one looks to do). That being said, while I'm Australian I'm Australian with deep Cheesehead roots and may be slightly biased in favour of that article being there. Should someone else feel that it fails notability, I'd probably take a back seat in such a discussion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Happyme22 • Dragons flight
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Zad68

Guideline and policy news
 * The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Technical news
 * Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
 * A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

Miscellaneous
 * A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
 * A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
 * Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for review
Thanks for reviewing Cross dressing ball. I'm surprised you didn't find any blunders in there, as my English is really not the best. Anyway, the time you've taken to check the article is appreciated. Thanks. --Ecelan (talk) 06:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Blunders, not so much. Looking at it again (in the "cold light of morning" for me here at least), I'd possibly say that the text in languages other than English doesn't all need to be there, but I'm not sure there's a particular policy on that. Generally speaking, we see non-English text and translation with things like songs or poetry quoted in excerpt, rather than multi-paragraph expositions from French or German. But there certainly isn't anything I could put my finger on first-go. It'll probably be re-worded by several others, of course! BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Baazaar
Did my digging. The production has a great deal of coverage and filming has been confirmed.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 08:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Good news all round, then. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Open access
Just to let you know, DrStrauss has closed the AFD discussion at Articles for deletion/Open access in Canada, and instead bundled the article into a new batch discussion at Articles for deletion/Open access in Vietnam because virtually all of its sibling articles for other countries are just as bad. So please feel free to add a comment to the new discussion if you wish. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd honestly forgotten how bad they were - or how low my standard was for "this might just be ok". Comment duly added. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

What does "rvv" mean?
You just reverted me because the bad edits I reverted weren't vandalism. I wonder if that might have been because I put "rvvvvv" in my edit summary. Does "rvv" mean "revert vandal"? I thought is was the plural of "rv" -- that is, reverting multiple edits -- the way pp and ff are the plurals of p (page) and f (following page). — kwami (talk) 04:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd never thought of that! "RVV" to me is always short for "ReVert Vandalism", but I can see where your usage makes sense as well. Looking to see where I got my impression from, I can see in WP:ESL that "rvv" or "rv/v" is given as an abbreviation for vandalism being reverted, so at least I didn't dream it! BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * But to the substance of the reversions, I do agree that the article's in poor shape. I'm a bit tied up at the moment, so I can't look at it line by line to see what should stay or whatever, but I should be able to lend my eyes to it in the coming days as well. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. There's probably something to save in there, but I don't have the time either, and given the choice, it's not hard to choose a factual stub over a developed but error-filled article. — kwami (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Truer words may never have been spoken around these parts. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Egzon Bejtullai
You informed me that my article for Egzon Bejtullai is proposed for deletion because he is not fully professional football player and has not played for the national A team, BUT shouldnt he qualify for an article due to the fact that he played on the EURO U21 final tournament? I thought rules say that he can have an article as long as he is either professional, played for national A team OR performed on a big tournament?
 * Thanks for the query. Please remember in future to sign your posts on Talk pages by typing the "tilde" (~) character four times. In answer to your question, the applicable standards are WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Specifically looking at the football-specific criteria, we can see that the first of these standards requires the player to have "played in...any Tier 1 international match...in a competitive senior international match". Unless I've misread something - which is a possibility, so please feel free to tell me as much - an under-age match isn't a "senior international match", regardless of the level at which it takes place. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

nothing is easy
No so easy! Pls leave your opinion on the issue on Talk:Syrian territories.Axxxion (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to stay out of this one. A bit busy in real life, and hot-button issues aren't usually much fun to jump into like this. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Question on Your Review of Puqudu
Hey, BigHaz. I received a notice that you reviewed Puqudu, an article which I created. I didn't see any edits, and the talk page is still empty, so I'm just wondering -- is there a log or something somewhere where I can see the review, or does "reviewed" just mean you took a look at it and didn't see any need to change anything? I'm sort of new to the whole article-creation side of Wikipedia, so I'm likely missing something simple and obvious here. Alephb (talk) 11:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What I did was to mark the page as "patrolled", which means that there wasn't anything much wrong with it. Obviously it may still need (and receive) editing from other users to improve it, but there was nothing I could see on a sort of "first pass" that needed fixing - no links to nonexistent categories, no weirdness in formatting, no cause for deletion, nothing to be tagged and so on. In other words, you're doing great and should keep doing what you're doing! BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Good to hear. Alephb (talk) 10:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 (first RfA to reach WP:300)
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news
 * Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
 * A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed (permalink).
 * An RfC (permalink) is currently open that proposes expanding WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation.

Technical news
 * LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
 * The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Anonymous comment left in the wrong place
Apologies for being rude, but please be honest enough should you claim to be so learned and honest. This is 'Fatal Urge Carefree Kiss' and you deleted a page about a novel series; 'Mishiida Alexander'. Your claim was that it is about an invented subject. I am sure an intellectual who is doing PhD would be intelligent enough to follow the referenced links and see that the works actually exist. So should I say you were dishonest? If you really are so honest then please go ahead and delete all pages about other literary works including but not limited to; Harry Potter, Twilight, Hunger Games, and works by authors of my class like Shakespeare. I know you will call me out for comparing myself with Shakespeare, but are you even honest enough to read my works and critically evaluate them without prejudice? I do not need to call you any names for that would be a disgrace to my education and upbringing. I can merely mention the facts, like I have, and that would be enough. Now let us see how much of a man you really are! Some people wrote the nastiest most words on my website's home page. I was morally strong enough not to delete them, a man enough to take the hit on my chest, and intelligent enough to reply with reasoned arguments. Let us see how you deal with this post on your home page. I will post a screenshot of this on my official twitter page 'PeaceLoveAdvice', and should you restore the page you deleted (no apology needed), I promise to remove this message myself.

Sincerely, Aman Thestrangeruknew Aka Fatal Urge Carefree Kiss — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.178.112.174 (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You're not being rude at all by commenting here, although I would recommend both signing your comment and placing it in a "New Section" (clicking the link that says those words) at the bottom of the page, rather than leaving it unsigned and at the top of the page. I'm happy to address the issues you've raised, though:
 * The works actually exist: I'm not disputing that. What the speedy deletion tag also states is that there's no "claim of significance" for the subject of the article. "It exists" isn't a claim of significance. Moreover, even if there is a claim of significance, the subject also needs to be notable in order to merit an article. As an example, my supervisor has recently written a book in his area of expertise. It exists, but so far hasn't been reviewed (these things take time, as I'm sure you'd know as an author). The fact that my supervisor - a smart man by anyone's definition - has written a book doesn't amount to a claim of significance, and the fact that there aren't third-party sources saying "Professor so-and-so's book is a groundbreaking study of such-and-such" means that it's not notable yet.
 * Should I say you were dishonest?: No, you certainly shouldn't. Aside from the fact that there are policies around here suggesting that one shouldn't make personal attacks and one should assume good faith on the part of other users, there's no dishonesty involved in seeing an article which has a tag which says "there's no claim of significance", confirming that the article indeed makes no such claim and then deleting it. Obviously it's annoying as the article creator (and I've been there, back in my earlier days as an editor), but that's how these things work. As with any other website, there are rules, policies and guidelines about what works and what doesn't on Wikipedia, and it's probably a better idea to have a read of those rather than claiming dishonesty on the part of another.
 * 'please go ahead and delete all pages about other literary works including but not limited to; Harry Potter, Twilight, Hunger Games, and works by authors of my class like Shakespeare:. No, I'm not going to do that. While I personally wouldn't say that the Twilight series is of any great literary merit, the fact remains that the four examples you've cited (and of course plenty of others) have articles which do make credible claims of significance and support those claims with - to put it mildly - sources confirming notability coming out of their ears. You're welcome to suggest that an article on one or more of these series/works should be deleted, but I don't believe you'll get very far.
 * I know you will call me out for comparing myself with Shakespeare: Perhaps surprisingly, I don't intend to. You're welcome to compare yourself with whoever you wish to compare yourself with. Even if nothing else, it's always nice to have goals in life. As a young historian, I compare myself with the "legends" of my field, and my friend who is a chef compares himself with the hosts of several cooking shows and the authors of several cookbooks. By the time the proverbial dust has settled on all three of our careers, perhaps we'll have legacies the equal of those leading lights.
 * are you even honest enough to read my works and critically evaluate them without prejudice?: I'll admit I've not had the opportunity to do so as yet, but that's not the point of the discussion here. We need to separate the works themselves from the article about the works. If I were to read every word you've ever had published and conclude "This man is better than Shakespeare", that still wouldn't amount to notability. As you'll see in the policy I linked you to earlier, notability requires in-depth coverage by multiple, reliable, third-party sources. My opinion as a person who reads a lot of books isn't really one of those, as I'm not a professional reviewer of fiction. As in my example about my supervisor's book - I think it's a marvellous piece of writing and it should change people's views about the topic he's written about. Unless and until there's third-party coverage saying as much, though, no article. The same applies for your novels, no matter what you as the author or I as a "man in the street" might think about them. Additionally, even if I were to read your novels and decide I didn't like them, that wouldn't mean I would delete an article about them if it demonstrated their notability. As I mentioned above, I'm not exactly a believer in Twilight being "great literature", but my personal sentiments about that series don't come into matters regarding their inclusion on this website.
 * should you restore the page you deleted: That's simply not going to happen, as outlined earlier. I'm happy to discuss the matter further with you if you wish, but an article on a series of novels which doesn't make any claim to its significance isn't something I'm going to undelete.
 * As a final thought for the moment, you'll find that on Wikipedia it's usually best not to write articles about yourself or things you have a strong connection to. This is because it's naturally harder not to have "skin in the game", as the saying goes, if someone else comes along and says "this needs to be edited/changed/deleted".
 * As mentioned, happy to discuss further. As an experienced editor, and an admin, around here, my "door is always open" for users who have questions. Depending on the level of assistance you're after, of course, there may be other areas to which I would need to direct you, but I'm always happy to help where possible. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your well detailed reply, however I unfortunately cannot agree with the same. My reservations can be summed up in two ways: a)The approach detailed is nothing but institutionalization of exclusion, much like the ‘White-Australia Policy’ of an older era Australia. b)A historian’s job is to be an impartial observer, and not an evaluator or commentator.

What was ‘White Australia Policy’? Simply put, only people of white descent were allowed to migrate to Australia. How was this discrimination institutionalized? There was a language proficiency test, and the immigration officer had the discretion to pick any language to test an applicant’s proficiency and determine if they were allowed in. Simple, legal, and effective way of excluding non-white migrant! What has it got to do with Wikipedia? Think of John Locke, the great British Philosopher whom scholars worldwide hail for his works, the Two Treatise on Government. He never accepted their authorship in his lifetime, for fear of reprisals. What Wikipedia, knowingly or unknowingly, is doing through its’ members like yourself; it is acting as an accessory to a mechanism of excluding people with dissenting opinions, and their works, to be publically acknowledged in any form, where those people are an eye sore for a certain section of world community. The media recognition that you have hinted at; there is a dedicated section about that media’s attitude towards my efforts on my website, something especially glaring when one considers the kind of things that make news these days. What Wikipedia (through members like you) is doing is; denying well deserved space to those who have been intentionally side-lined by politically aligned media, in spite of their meritorious work. You are institutionalizing exclusion by setting up artificial barriers. How does one get recognition in media? You either pay for news space, or you are hyped by a politico-business lobby. Even the things that go viral have a marketing or hype team working behind the scenes to make it go viral. Established artists and writers only acknowledge those who they are asked to acknowledge by those who run their careers, and would rather shy from acknowledging those they perceive as better competition. Your approach, willingly or unwillingly, institutionalizes exclusion by being an accessory to this mechanism.

Wikipedia is like a museum that showcases human history. The value of artefacts showcased in a museum is not determined by the museum, but the value of a museum may as well be determined by the artefacts. If a museum deliberately sidelines an artefact of value, people might question its’ intentions and challenge its’ reputation. The value of artefacts themselves is not the same for everyone. What might be a source of pride for one civilization might merely be of an academic interest to another. A curator’s job is not to assign value to the artefacts, but display them with relevant information. A historian is only supposed to write history, and note any comments of significance about the events and people making up that history, but is not entitled to judge what should be included in history based on what someone has to say about it. Wikipedia and its members cannot determine what is a part of human history and not, including my works; for they are that anyway. You can write about Eurovision as a historian, but you not writing about it will neither diminish its value, nor will it deny its existence. However, should Wikipedia not have any information about Eurovision, people would question its affiliations. There are hundreds, if not thousands of people who have read my works, and thousands, if not hundred thousands of those who have downloaded my songs. Wikipedia not having any information about me or my works will not diminish their value, and nor will it having any information would add to their value, for Wikipedia is not an advertising medium, but it would raise questions about Wikipedia’s commitment to recording human history impartially. When an archaeologist digs up an artefact, they don’t go to media to determine its’ value, but do so themselves. Should Wikipedia and its members wish to play that role then they cannot go and say that media needs to inform them what is worthy, for media as already mentioned, is not impartial and absolutely honest anymore.

I am not a media or political puppet, and it is really a shame that as an independent content creator I am limited by my financial resources as to whether I can hire a team to promote or catalogue my works. But that does not mean that I should not do enough on my own. I am sorry, but I don’t pay media to hype me up, and I am honest enough to speak my opinions without fear, unlike John Locke.

Sincerely, Aman ThestrangerUknew Aka ‘Fatal Urge Carefree Kiss’ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.178.112.174 (talk) 07:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, to respond to the points you raise in the order in which you did:
 * a)The approach detailed is nothing but institutionalization of exclusion, much like the ‘White-Australia Policy’ of an older era Australia:. If that's your opinion, you're welcome to it. I disagree, but this disagreement is neither here nor there. Ultimately, there are rules everywhere, whether on Wikipedia, Twitter, Facebook or elsewhere. Whether we like them or not, they are the rules by which the site or the place operates and (unless and until they change), we have to work within them. You can spare me the lecture on the White Australia Policy, by the way.
 * b)A historian’s job is to be an impartial observer, and not an evaluator or commentator: Broadly a true statement, but irrelevant here. My role on Wikipedia is "Administrator" (or "Sysop", as some of the even longer-tenured users refer to them). I happen to be a historian in my private life, just as there are other admins who are lawyers, scientists, authors, teachers or whatever else they may be. As an admin, I'm involved in making sure that the site works the way the rules and policies say it should. As a historian, I'm able to bring my knowledge from that field to this role - particularly if someone were to write an article claiming that something happened which I know didn't (as has happened before). A judgement on the claim or lack thereof of the significance of the article you wrote and I deleted - which, if we return to that focus, I should reiterate here made no claim of significance whatsoever, simply indicating that the series of novels had been written and was available to be read - is something which can be made by anybody with an understanding of the policies governing the site and sufficient command of the language to read the article in question. It doesn't matter what "hat" they may wear in their working life.
 * What Wikipedia, knowingly or unknowingly, is doing through its’ members like yourself; it is acting as an accessory to a mechanism of excluding people with dissenting opinions, and their works, to be publically acknowledged in any form, where those people are an eye sore for a certain section of world community: Not so at all. The fact that your novels don't meet the notability requirement at present doesn't mean either that they won't ever meet it (if they're as good as you tell me they are, surely there'll be reviews of the series you can cite - to say nothing of the comparisons you've drawn earlier to plays and novels adapted to film, if this were to happen one would expect the third-party reliable coverage to be present in droves) or that they don't exist or can't be discussed in another forum. Always remember, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. Wikipedia's role is to describe things which have already achieved a certain level of coverage and significance, rather than promoting things which haven't yet. Again, this is in keeping with the policies by which the site runs, which I understand you may not necessarily be aware of at present.
 * there is a dedicated section about that media’s attitude towards my efforts on my website, something especially glaring when one considers the kind of things that make news these days: Now we're getting somewhere. Once this coverage amounts to the level required by the General Notability Guideline, then the subject of that coverage is eligible for an article. In your case, I understand you do a number of different things - music and writing at the very least - so you'd need to ensure that the coverage is specific to the relevant topic, if that makes sense. A lot of the time, what we see is that a writer becomes notable and then one or more of their novels or series become notable, so the information about that novel or series is then split off into a new article. So it may be that - once that guideline is satisfied - the article about you in general is the one to focus on first. Then, as people review and discuss your work, one or more new articles can be created. Obviously we need to see that the coverage is there first, though, don't we?
 * denying well deserved space: Again, you're welcome to your opinion, but it just isn't correct. I'll leave aside your claim of political bias, and reiterate here that as soon as the "space" is indeed "well deserved", you get yourself an article. The onus is on you to demonstrate that the coverage is there.
 * Wikipedia is like a museum that showcases human history. The value of artefacts showcased in a museum is not determined by the museum, but the value of a museum may as well be determined by the artefacts: False. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Even if Wikipedia were a museum, a museum is entirely within its rights to say "We'll show this artefact, but not include this artefact in our collection". A museum dedicated to the history of a particular city, for example, wouldn't include artefacts about an entirely different place unless there were some special reason to do so. Likewise, neither would the museum include every single map of the city (for instance), but would instead focus on those maps which show significant points about the history of the city. The same is true with Wikipedia - not every single novel by every single author has an article, because not every single novel by every single author has achieved the level of significance required for an article. Obviously when we're talking about something subjective like literature, there will be novels and authors who I feel should be included and aren't, or shouldn't be included and are, and the same is true for you. That's life, though, really.
 * A historian is only supposed to write history, and note any comments of significance about the events and people making up that history, but is not entitled to judge what should be included in history based on what someone has to say about it: Again, broadly correct but entirely irrelevant. There is a debate we could have on this sentence, but it won't address the topic at hand, so I won't begin.
 * Wikipedia and its members cannot determine what is a part of human history and not, including my works; for they are that anyway: Correct. The inclusion or lack thereof of an article about the novels you've clearly spent considerable effort in writing is not, was not and will not be a judgement on their value as literature. Wikipedia, and any other encyclopedia for that matter, is not a literary critic, but is perfectly capable of containing the views and opinions of people who are. I'd like to say we can move on, since we both agree nobody's saying that your novels are bad, but something tells me you're not going to do so.
 * You can write about Eurovision as a historian, but you not writing about it will neither diminish its value, nor will it deny its existence. However, should Wikipedia not have any information about Eurovision, people would question its affiliations: Again, agreed. Eurovision is a topic about which a surprisingly large amount has been written - even to the extent of academic courses being designed around the sociology and politics thereof, I've learned recently. While there are surely readers out there who would groan at the fact that "XYZ has won Eurovision" turns up on the front page of the site every year, it happens.
 * There are hundreds, if not thousands of people who have read my works, and thousands, if not hundred thousands of those who have downloaded my songs: Which is great to know, and I'm very happy for you. Doesn't necessarily amount to notability, I'm afraid, as we've discussed before.
 * Wikipedia not having any information about me or my works will not diminish their value, and nor will it having any information would add to their value, for Wikipedia is not an advertising medium, but it would raise questions about Wikipedia’s commitment to recording human history impartially: Doesn't follow. You're right that their non-inclusion isn't a judgement on their value, as above. Where you're wrong, though, is your persistent belief that Wikipedia needs to record every aspect of human history. Case in point, we have articles on just about every head of state of just about every country here, because they are of significance (they won elections, fought revolutions, whatever it might have been, to get where they got to). Do we have articles about what these heads of state ate for breakfast every morning? Do we have articles about their siblings, where the siblings didn't go on to achieve great things? The answer is "no" in both cases. And yet, surely you would agree that if the Prime Minister of Australia eats a bowl of Weetbix for breakfast, that's part of history, or if the younger half-brother of the President of Ghana was a high-school maths teacher, that's also part of history. In other words, there's a line that exists somewhere, and that line is determined by the depth of independent coverage afforded to the topic. Even if the Ghanaian maths-teacher half-brother were a very nice person, he would need to have been covered in depth to merit an article.
 * When an archaeologist digs up an artefact, they don’t go to media to determine its’ value, but do so themselves. Should Wikipedia and its members wish to play that role then they cannot go and say that media needs to inform them what is worthy, for media as already mentioned, is not impartial and absolutely honest anymore: To take your example of the artefact, that's true, but that's not what Wikipedia is or does. Wikipedia isn't a news service to say "this artefact has been dug up" or "this novel has been published". It's an encyclopedia, which contains information saying that the artefact was dug up, the novel published or the election held. It's a distinction that many users do misapprehend, which is why I'm taking pains to explain it several times here, because that rule is absolutely paramount in explaining why one article exists and another doesn't. You're welcome to ask for more clarity on that point, too, because it's one which - to put it bluntly - is going to have a huge effect on your experience of the site, as it already has.
 * I am limited by my financial resources as to whether I can hire a team to promote or catalogue my works: I understand your difficulty, but this goes to the heart of the problem. There are plenty of up-and-coming authors, singers, artists and other creative people (and even a surprising number of people in other fields as well) who take the view "Wikipedia is the solution to my lack of promotion. I can register an account and create an article about myself and the work I do. Much faster and cheaper than going through agents, getting my own website and so on." Sadly, though, that isn't how Wikipedia was set up to work. Just as you wouldn't expect - well, I wouldn't expect, and I hope you wouldn't either - to see an article on yourself or your novels in the latest print edition of Britannica without a reasonable amount of coverage behind you, the same applies here.
 * As mentioned, the offer of further assistance stands. May I ask if you read the link to the Notability policy? There are some other "pillars" of the site I'd be happy to point you in the direction of, if you'd like. There is also the option of asking more specific questions in other locations - I can't always guarantee my ability to answer as quickly or as thoroughly as I have in this instance, so rather than leaving you hanging I'd recommend some other pathways if that's the case. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I think what I’ve already written answers everything you have said. You yourself have acknowledged most of it; although I get a feeling you don’t accept its true meaning. But that’s fine! Just to give you an example; your stressing ‘significance’ is predictable, but I am not sure if you realize what ‘significance’ really is from history’s perspective.

Take for example ‘Mishiida Alexander’ series, which is the first to employ a writing style that makes the reader themselves a part of the story, a style that is very confronting at first, and perhaps a bit undercooked for the first half of the first book in the series, but nevertheless comes into its own over the series. Now the ‘significance’ of this work lies in being the first of a kind, but if all history records in the world are distorted to omit this fact, then I as the creator would be denied my rightful place, while someone after me but supported by media or other lobbies, might do another work and get credit for it. This has often happened in human history, only to be corrected by future generations at great pains and with great uncertainty. You as an ‘administrator’ would become the instrument of that denial, and all your explanations are nothing but a nice example of exactly what I mentioned in my earlier reply. Every agenda deploys some methods/medium that yield particular results. The problem is not solved by attacking the methods/medium or questioning results, but rather by fixing agendas.

I don’t need a single Wiki page for myself or my works. It is wiki founder who pops up into my emails every year seeking a $5 donation, and his site does not even do justice to the people he seeks money from. I have just put the limited work that Wikipedia does to the world’s perusal, and thanks to your reply, it would make sense to everyone. What is ‘significance’ really? Just my one work was enough to answer all past generations of the world humanity, and the only person I would love to hear from is the one, present or any future, to answer just one question that I pose. People would like to question what class I belong to! Tell me, can any religion that humanity has ever known, just answer my one work, which is merely a 21 minute video:

https://youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=Dulpjqi3CuE

Media will make me or my works significant? That’s laughable! Consider the examples that you gave in your reply and then ponder; how are celebrity drug charges, domestic issues and stuff significant for humanity’s records that make up ‘Wikipedia – the free encyclopaedia’? Wikipedia has nothing to offer that interests me. My works significance needs no light, but honest acceptance!

Sincerely, Aman, thestrangeruknew Aka 'Fatal Urge Carefree Kiss' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.178.112.174 (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You yourself have acknowledged most of it; although I get a feeling you don’t accept its true meaning: This rather reminds me of the conversation that I used to have with my parents when I would ask them if I could do something relatively silly (underage drinking, get a tattoo and so on). They would patiently explain why they felt I shouldn't, to which I would customarily reply "You're not listening!" The older I get, the more I realise the truth of their response, "Of course we're listening. What we're not doing is agreeing with you." At the risk of sounding as though I'm talking down to you, I acknowledge every word you have written and I acknowledge that they come from a deeply-held conviction that the article on your novels deserves a place in Wikipedia. I don't agree with that conviction of yours for a moment, and my disagreement is supported by the policies determining what deserves a place in Wikipedia, which you then interpret as my "not accepting" what you're saying. Nothing could be further from the truth. You're more than welcome to wish that things were otherwise. I wouldn't mind it if today were Saturday, because I'd rather tomorrow were something other than Monday, but I have a horrible suspicion that I can't change that fact either.
 * your stressing ‘significance’ is predictable, but I am not sure if you realize what ‘significance’ really is from history’s perspective: Whether or not I realise what anything is from a historical perspective is neither here nor there. What matters is whether or not I - or you, for that matter - realise what it is from a Wikipedia perspective. When I'm editing Wikipedia, and more so when I'm performing administrative functions on the site, whatever I do for a living takes a back seat to the policies which explain what can and can't be included here. The same - ideally - applies to other editors as well, which is why there's generally a view that writing an article about yourself or your band/novel/business/idea etc isn't a great idea, as it becomes harder to evaluate the information as dispassionately as it should be. While I'm sure that you would be at least relatively as strong in your belief that the article should have stayed if it were about novels written by a friend or family member, it's much harder to "disconnect" from an article about something you yourself have done. This is why, for example, I don't tend to have anything much to do with the article on a band which some friends of mine are in - while the band is notable and therefore has an article, I question my ability to remain neutral in any dispute about the content on the page, so I resolve that issue by simply enjoying their music, rather than editing the article. To put it more bluntly, you have to realise that the deletion of the article wasn't a slight against you or the novels. It was purely an application of a pretty clear-cut set of policies.
 * the ‘significance’ of this work lies in being the first of a kind, but if all history records in the world are distorted to omit this fact, then I as the creator would be denied my rightful place, while someone after me but supported by media or other lobbies, might do another work and get credit for it: There's the nucleus of notability in the earlier part of this sentence. If there were to be reliable, third-party coverage agreeing that this style of writing is indeed unique or sui generis, then that would again be a justification for re-creating the article. While I suppose there's a risk of someone else writing something which takes your style and attracts more coverage, that still isn't Wikipedia's place to adjudicate. As mentioned earlier, Wikipedia isn't a literary critic itself, so much as it is the summary of pre-existing literary criticism about a given novel, series or author. While it's tempting to think "I'll create a Wikipedia article to 'stake my claim' as the first person to write in this style", that's putting the cart squarely before the horse. I realise that what I'm essentially saying is "go away and do your marketing some other way", and I don't necessarily want it to sound so blunt, but that's about the size of it. To return to the example of the "Harry Potter" series you cited earlier, it wasn't Wikipedia's place early in the history of that series to have someone read Philosopher's Stone and write an article saying "I think this is an amazing novel, and JK Rowling is clearly going places". Once professional reviewers had started doing that, then it was Wikipedia's place to include those sorts of views in an article about the book. Do you see how that's the opposite of the system you wish existed here?
 * You as an ‘administrator’ would become the instrument of that denial, and all your explanations are nothing but a nice example of exactly what I mentioned in my earlier reply: And? It may surprise you, but I'm happy in the knowledge that when I perform an administrative action, I'm ensuring that the policies around content on Wikipedia are upheld. You may well find that difficult to believe, but that's the case.
 * The problem is not solved by attacking the methods/medium or questioning results, but rather by fixing agendas: Funnily enough, I was just thinking that I should make a similar point to you. If you believe that the policies regarding notability and the like should be overhauled so that the article on your novels can be included, you're welcome to discuss that. the "Requests for Comment" process is probably the best place to start, as it tends to attract the most editors, although it's possible that other mechanisms are better - it's been a while since I've been heavily involved there, so I'm a bit hazy on the specifics of the process these days. Do keep in mind, though, that policy change is done through consensus, and consensus doesn't necessarily happen quickly. Unless and until the policy changes, though, you and I are both bound by what there is. I should also add, partly for posterity, that by making this suggestion I am by no means endorsing such a course of action, and neither am I suggesting that there is any probability of success or failure in it. I'm merely providing another outlet, as I promised I would where applicable earlier.
 * I don’t need a single Wiki page for myself or my works: So if that's the case, why on earth have we just been debating the deletion of a page on your works? If you don't require one, and it was deleted, then isn't that the end of the story?
 * Media will make me or my works significant? That’s laughable! It is, but that's not exactly what I said. What I said was that media coverage will provide notability for your works. The italicised words are what you might call "terms of art" here on Wikipedia (in much the same way as, being a law student, you would be familiar with words in that field which don't quite share the definition you and I might intend if we're talking to friends over lunch), and I've linked to the relevant policies. You'll see there that the two policies, when working together, mean that when reliable, third-party sources are discussing your works in depth, then there is reason to create and maintain an article on your works. If that sounds a bit familiar, it's because I've been saying the same all along, and you've been unwilling to understand my point as it doesn't result in your article being kept.
 * how are celebrity drug charges, domestic issues and stuff significant for humanity’s records that make up ‘Wikipedia – the free encyclopaedia’? Generally speaking, I agree with you. There is a school of thought which says that "XYZ is an actor who has been in Film-1, Film-2 and Series-A, as well as directing This, That and Something Else. XYZ is married to ABC and they have two children" is all that needs to be said about a given actor, rather than "XYZ is an actor who has been in Film-1, Film-2 and Series-A, as well as directing This, That and Something Else. XYZ is married to ABC and they have two children, PDQ and LMN. XYZ has previously been in relationships with Foo and Bar, and was arrested on drugs charges when leaving the Grand Duchy of Ruthenia, only being freed after making appropriate obeisance to the Grand Panjadrum of Ruthenia. XYZ's children PDQ and LMN have frequently appeared in music videos with Bloggs and Smith". To a certain extent, I do feel that that first example is better. That said, consensus (that word again) holds that except in extreme cases, the latter is better as long as it can be sourced. Because I know that the policy is what it is, rather than what I'd like it to be, I don't go on a quixotic crusade to change all the relevant articles. While I might once upon a time have wanted to debate this, I've concluded that life is too short, and if someone wants to go through the process of changing that consensus, more power to them.
 * As ever, my door remains open, but please do have a read through those policies. I can't help but feel that it will be easier to discuss policies and how they work (if you still want to dispute the deletion, that is) if you're familiar with them. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately my dear friend, the moment Wikipedia labels a page as significant or otherwise, it has reviewed that page or work. In fact, it has actively engaged in a certification process, that these works are significant, while those that are not here are not significant, directly impacting their trading interests in the process, and hence my claim of institutionalization of exclusion. While media has an excuse, that they didn’t look into a particular work, Wikipedia actually lies that these works are not significant. And given the fact that Wikipedia members are neither trained, nor entrusted or interested in evaluating works, as you yourself has mentioned so many times, it is a clear case of unconscionable and misleading conduct as covered under Australian Consumer Law. Wikipedia may not be trading, but it is acting as an accessory to those who are, and affecting those that are not supported by them. It was alright if Wikipedia was a paid service, for then people would know that every significant work is not there on Wikipedia, but only those that pay are. But on the contrary, it clearly postures as a free source that anyone can add to, and then goes on to actively state that only significant works are allowed here, clearly and unequivocally implying that what is not here is not significant. Policies cannot excuse it of wrong doing. It is clearly acting to certify works by those who are supported by paid media, while discriminating against those who are not, without actually and impartially considering their merit; an unconscionable act. Let me give you examples from Wikipedia itself; one white artist, and one black artist, just so I don’t appear to be partial towards any group. These examples will put in place the truth about ‘media’ and ‘Wikipedia’.

Soko and Kelis, and their singles ‘I’ll kill her’ and ‘Milkshake’, were both promoted by media, including various FM stations, and find a place in Wikipedia, because they are significant, as media has written about them. With all due respect to the two artists, and after admitting that I am not even half a singer that they are, my song ‘If I were to die’, which is not even the best song from my debut album, is way ahead of the two in all departments, including lyrics, music and singing. Yet it was never played by any radio station, mentioned by any media, and thus would be ‘labelled’ insignificant’ by Wikipedia. While it clearly shows how media is nothing but a partisan and paid resource, and all peer reviews are nothing but friends patting each other on the back, Wikipedia goes one step further by actively certifying that what media promotes is significant, while better works not so promoted are not. That’s a clear clean lie! Policies cannot justify lies, and would always only be weak cover-ups in the form of explanations. Now before you get on another writing spree and break down my reply, let me say a few words about that style of replying, that is used by many online and looks highly impressive, but does the biggest disservice to the cause of arguments.

Say for example I had said; “All cats are dogs. But some dogs would become donkeys. Does that mean some donkeys might have been cats?” What that reply style does is this: “-All cats are dogs.– No, you got it wrong. Cats and dogs are two different species. Read a proper classification system. -But some dogs would become donkeys.– No, you are wrong again. Not only the two are different species, but donkeys are herbivores. - Does that mean some donkeys might have been cats?– I think you are confused and need to go through the classification system again. That is an impossible suggestion.”

What effectively happens is, that while the cohesive argument never gets answered, by breaking it down into small individual components its’ value is diminished, to avoid dealing with it. Sorry to say, but I have presented arguments, with examples, that have not been answered, but merely avoided.

You mentioned how difficult it is to bring about policy changes, and why you are disinclined to go on a crusade anymore. My dear friend, that’s exactly why people should always support those who actually go on a crusade to fix something, for it is not easy, and without it, what’s wrong will not change (You should listen to my song ‘City of Cowards’). Add to that, what Wikipedia does, directly impacts my own trading interests. I have all the more reason to seek a change (perhaps why Wikipedia would rather not have individuals writing about their own works). And at the end of it all, a wrong policy cannot be a justification for a wrong doing. Raise the issue up! I am not the one who needs to realize that what happened is policy. I know that! That policy is wrong, and what needs to be done is fixing the policy. And you should be the first one arguing it now. So think!

Sincerely, Aman, thestrangeruknew aka ‘Fatal Urge Carefree Kiss’ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.178.236.184 (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to reply in the same way as I always have. I'll be a touch more abrupt here, for reasons you'll see below:
 * the moment Wikipedia labels a page as significant or otherwise, it has reviewed that page or work. In fact, it has actively engaged in a certification process, that these works are significant, while those that are not here are not significant, directly impacting their trading interests in the process, and hence my claim of institutionalization of exclusion: That's at the very least a wilful misunderstanding of how things work here. I'm going to assume that you've read the policies I've linked you to from here on out, hence my use of the word "wilful". As you would be well aware, Wikipedia evaluates the reliability of the sources provided in an article. To take the example of the article we're discussing, the sources provided were what are viewed as unreliable sources, as fundamentally anyone can publish their work and make it available via Amazon in a digital form (I know three people, not including you, who've done precisely that) without the intervention of agents, publishers and the rest of the "apparatus" that would have been involved in previous generations. Meanwhile, something like the New York Review of Books (to take a dramatically-opposed example) is deemed reliable for any number of reasons. If the NYRB reviews (makes a judgement on) a book and says it's this, that or the other, that holds rather more water than the blog I run which circulates solely to my friends, for example. You can bleat on about how that's not fair, but rules are what they are and I've indicated to you what the process is to (attempt to) change the existing policies. Unless and until they change, though, we have to work with what we have. It really is that simple.
 * Wikipedia actually lies that these works are not significant: Entirely untrue. Given that you've been advised of the way the policies operate, I'm not going to entertain that deliberate mischaracterisation further.
 * And given the fact that Wikipedia members are neither trained, nor entrusted or interested in evaluating works, as you yourself has mentioned so many times, it is a clear case of unconscionable and misleading conduct as covered under Australian Consumer Law: Now things are starting to get serious. I've not linked you to this policy prior to now, so I won't mistake your ignorance thereof for wilful flouting, but you are now deemed to be advised of that policy. Legal threats don't belong here, and the outcome of making a further one is not one I would recommend.
 * it clearly postures as a free source that anyone can add to, and then goes on to actively state that only significant works are allowed here, clearly and unequivocally implying that what is not here is not significant: If we look at the very top of the screen, we see three words. "The Free Encyclopedia". You're right that Wikipedia is free (it doesn't "posture" as being free, it actually is free), but it's a free Encyclopedia. Not a free publicity service for up-and-coming authors, not a free discussion forum, not a free place to promote bands, and so on. If you don't like the fact that it's an Encyclopedia, you're under no compulsion to continue to use it. Just as the site is free to use, you're free to choose whether you wish to do so. Complaining that it works the way it does and won't let you write an article about the series of novels you've written isn't the right way to go about things.
 * Policies cannot excuse it of wrong doing. It is clearly acting to certify works by those who are supported by paid media, while discriminating against those who are not, without actually and impartially considering their merit; an unconscionable act: Policies exist to explain how the site works. You feel that those policies - and by extension the mechanics by which the site works - are "wrong". As above, you're under no compulsion to use the site if you don't like how it works.
 * [description of songs, including yours] Yet it was never played by any radio station, mentioned by any media, and thus would be ‘labelled’ insignificant’ by Wikipedia. While it clearly shows how media is nothing but a partisan and paid resource, and all peer reviews are nothing but friends patting each other on the back, Wikipedia goes one step further by actively certifying that what media promotes is significant, while better works not so promoted are not: I think you may be starting to get this. Without media coverage, there's no notability (not "significance", remember, the two words are different). I'm sure you worked long and hard on your song and feel very slighted by the fact that "Big Media" hasn't taken any notice of it, but that's life. This isn't "every player wins a prize" at the local school fete. As Wikipedia isn't itself a music critic or a platform for the publication of music criticism, it relies on the opinions and views of music critics, those same bullies who aren't paying your song any heed. If it's any consolation, I frequently decry the state of popular music, too.
 * I have presented arguments, with examples, that have not been answered, but merely avoided: That's great to know. I've presented policies which you've had the opportunity to read and understand (and ask questions about), which have either been read and not understood, read and misunderstood, or entirely ignored. Your move.
 * what Wikipedia does, directly impacts my own trading interests: We've been through this before. Wikipedia doesn't exist to promote your novels, my supervisor's monographs or my neighbour's band. I know that, and you must have read the policies to that effect by now.
 * That policy is wrong, and what needs to be done is fixing the policy: Which I've informed you of the process to do. Go for it, if that's what you want to do. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

First of all, Wikipedia is not a source of advertisement. No one searches Wikipedia to uncover new talent. People only use Wikipedia when they want to know something more about what they might have heard or come to know elsewhere. And then too, Wikipedia is merely a convenient source, and not the only source. It is not about advertisement, but about honest information. It is about, in one word; Honesty! Thank you for making clear in no uncertain terms that Wikipedia is nothing but a mouthpiece of big-media. We as members of community cannot let a reputation to be built on lies; a reputation of an impartial source which Wikipedia is clearly not.

Secondly, I don’t threaten people. That’s not my style. I just do what I decide to do. What I said was merely an argument, explaining how Wikipedia is being dishonest and to what level. Did I say anywhere any legal action is warranted or coming? You love tearing down arguments into their constituent parts. What words made you think it was?

Thirdly, your entire argument is; this is policy, you cannot change this policy even if you don’t like it; and I understand that. But policies are not bigger than laws, and just like them, work within the confines of common sense and leave a scope of discretion to those applying them. Problems only arise when people apply policies and laws without applying commonsense. Yesterday there was a news item, on ‘9News’, a so called ‘Big Media’ outlet, which was about a dog that played dead for one minute until its owner took off its’ leash. Does that make that news story significant/notable and deserving of a Wikipedia page? Can you apply your Wikipedia policy to it without applying commonsense? There was and is no need for me to create any page about me or my works. In fact, they should have been set up by Wikipedia community itself, to provide information about me. What a disgrace that it hasn’t? My works can silence biggest critics, and are not merely a flash in the pan (I could have used Lorde’s ‘Royals’ to make my point, or Birdie’s ‘I’ll be alright’, and used another of my works like ‘Star of my night’ or ‘Lights of Glory (Master Mix’). But you refuse to accept the truth even when evidence is put right there in front of you. Instead you are cowering behind policies, and I am sure Wikipedia as an organisation would back you up, else what a shame it would be on its’ face. The problem is not that there is a policy. The problem is that policy is prone to abuse, and has clearly been abused. Now break this paragraph down and argue how policy is god!

Fourthly, I don’t worry about bullies, but bullies are scared of me. The reason there is dead silence in media about me and my works is that the work that I do challenges all hierarchies and opens up a plethora of opportunities for the so called 99%; a complete outsider who competes with established industry specialists for quality on near ‘zero dollars’ budgets. I show the world how things are done, and done without any assistance, given the way human society has advanced. I am giving true freedom to people; freedom from the bullies you mentioned. These minor hiccups are the last ditch reaction of a crumbling palace. You want to know notability or significance of my works, but can you even honestly accept what I just mentioned in the previous paragraphs?

Sincerely, Aman, thestrangeruknew aka ‘Fatal Urge Carefree Kiss’ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.178.236.184 (talk) 02:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * People only use Wikipedia when they want to know something more about what they might have heard or come to know elsewhere: Give that man a prize! You've finally got the order of operations correct! Go ye forth and become ye notable. Then the Wikipedia article can exist.
 * Did I say anywhere any legal action is warranted or coming? You love tearing down arguments into their constituent parts. What words made you think it was? The moment anyone starts using words like "unconscionable conduct" and talking specifically about the law (you mentioned Australian Consumer Law there, too), a warning of that nature is entirely justified. If you don't feel that was a legal threat, that's your opinion. In mine, the words you were using were heading in that direction pretty clearly, and it seemed appropriate to direct you to a policy which would advise you not to continue down that route. I agree that you didn't specifically threaten to sue anyone, but there are few other reasons to bring the law into a discussion otherwise focused on the mechanics of the website.
 * Does that make that news story significant/notable and deserving of a Wikipedia page? Couldn't say. I didn't see the news last night and what little time I've had spare today hasn't thrown the report up at me through social media or so. If the coverage only amounted to a brief mention on one bulletin, though, that sounds to me like a classic example of something which doesn't pass this policy right here. But you'd already know that because you've read the policy, right?
 * There was and is no need for me to create any page about me or my works: We are in violent agreement here. You didn't need to create the article, which has been deleted. I'm about ready to move on, since you agree with that point.
 * In fact, they should have been set up by Wikipedia community itself, to provide information about me: Remember that earlier comment of yours about people using Wikipedia to find out more information about what they've "come to know elsewhere"? Show me the sources providing third-party in-depth coverage where people will have "come to know [about you and your works] elsewhere". You admit yourself that that's what's required.
 * The problem is that policy is prone to abuse, and has clearly been abused: This is going to come as a surprise, but it's not all about you. The fact that someone has looked at the article on your works and said "I don't think that fits within the policies we have here" and someone else (me) has said "You know, you're right" and deleted the article isn't, wasn't and couldn't be someone saying "this guy's an idiot" or worse, or anyone else endorsing that view. You're just not that special a little snowflake, I'm afraid.
 * Now, I've given you more than enough assistance in this regard, in terms of pointing you to policies and providing advice regarding better options for creating articles. Much as I do enjoy - elements of - this discussion, I'm not convinced we're really getting anywhere. The object of the exercise here is to build an encyclopedia, and I'm starting to wonder if that's really what you're here to do, so what do you say you make the choice either to work in with the process here (trying to change the policy if you really want to tilt at that windmill) or to take your crusade elsewhere? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

My objectives of both creating the pages and writing to you are complete, and I assure you, your words have played an important role in bringing out the true nature of certain content on wikipedia. My objectives were solely restricted to that. Nothing was personal.

Now I realize you've just called me a name, but I still don't need to stoop to your level. You perhaps didn't notice, I never called you a name, but merely asked questions that arose out of context for you to answer on your own, honestly. Saying anything further would not only be a disgrace to my education and upbringing, not to mention I'll become same as you, but can also not be reasonably expected from a man with work as intensive as mine. I may have had public interest reasons to question Wikipedia, and I did so as a well meaning person and with fair (and still unanswered arguments), but I see no reason to disgrace myself for something petty.

Aman, thestrangeruknew aka 'Fatal Urge Carefree Kiss' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.178.236.184 (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've not called you a name, and neither have I accused you of calling me one. You've been entirely civil - if entirely misguided - throughout this interaction, during which the arguments you raised have been addressed and answered on multiple occasions. The fact that you don't agree with the answers provided doesn't mean that answers were not provided. It simply means that you don't agree with them. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 August 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing my page

Reviewing my page
Thanks!!! Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Ständchen, D 920 (Schubert)
Lieber Benutzer BigHaz! I've just come back from an 80-day wiki-break, so a belated thank you for reviewing my article. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, MinorProphet (talk) 12:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Reviewing Dan Blum page
Belated thanks for reviewing Dan Blum page! Norramic (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Nakon • Scott
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news
 * ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
 * Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.

Technical news
 * You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
 * Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
 * In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration
 * Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Terrorism guidelines
I've been thinking about this. I wonder whether adding a sentence to WP:NCRIME that would read something like: Crimes are very likely to be notable if they are motivated by ideological commitments or by prejudice against specific groups.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that's definitely a start. With my devil's advocate hat on (borrowed from you, I think!), I'll say that I can see some dispute at times - there's a claim made that the driver of the car in Charlottesville, for example, was "just" mentally ill, rather than motivated by ideology or prejudice, for example, and there have been similar claims advanced about some of the lone-wolf attackers in Europe from about the Nice attack onwards, inasmuch as I've been following any of those cases closely - but there's a lot of merit in what you suggest. I do have a preference for the more clear-cut guidelines where someone or something is notable if it's done XYZ and not if it hasn't, but the more I've thought about it, the less likely I think that is to work with something like terrorism. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Started an RfC; we'll see.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Latsos Duo
Hey BigHaz: you placed a tag ( fan's point of view) in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Latsos_Piano_Duo. Any suggestions as to whether or not it can be removed? I would be happy to make some edits upon your suggestions. Thanks! Best, Christophhhhh (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be honest and say I can't exactly remember what made me put that tag there - it's been a busy couple of months, so even re-reading the article as it was when I patrolled it doesn't seem to be helping, which is annoying. The good news is that I don't have any objection to removing that tag now, so feel free to remove it. The title may need a change, though, as the duo seems to be just called "The Latsos", rather than "The Latsos Piano Duo". "Piano Duo" can go in brackets if there's another article with the same name, obviously. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks so much! I will see what I can do. Best regards, Christophhhhh (talk) 11:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries. If you can't rename it for any reason, let me know and I can take care of it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Redirect of EP article to main artist page
Hello, wondering why a certain redirect was made awhile back. The article in question should be accessible from the artist's EP table https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Antwoord#EPs under "Ekstra". I created the article so that the "Die Antwoord chronology" could be followed without breaks, but this is no longer the case as trying to follow the chronology from the release immediately prior (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_(Die_Antwoord_EP) ) will now just take you back to the artist's page. I understand that it had a notability tag placed on it (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ekstra_(Die_Antwoord_EP)&action=history ) but given that it's a release available for purchase from a charting, internationally-touring artist, I think it should retain its own article. Thanks for your time. JesseKramme (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Good question, and I'm not sure I'm the best person to ask, as I wasn't involved in this process. If we look at the history of the page, we can see that another user tagged it in mid-June with a PROD (Proposed Deletion) tag, indicating that there was "no indication of notability". This also was communicated to you on your Talk page. With PRODs, there's then a week-long timeframe during which you or anyone else can remove that tag - preferably with edits resolving the concerns indicated. In this instance, we can see that just over a week later, with no edits from anyone in between, another user redirected the page to the one on the band, rather than having the article simply deleted.
 * So much for the question of why, but in a broader sense you're also asking whether it should have happened. The relevant notability standards for recordings list a number of criteria as well as the standard of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I'll run through these in order, as well as providing a quick assessment of where the article was at the time the PROD was added. I assume that either or both of the users involved in the tagging and redirection conducted a more thorough search for sources, but you'd need to ask them to be sure:
 * Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it: The only reference provided was to iTunes, which means that the "multiple" part of this criterion at the very least was missing. I will say, too, that fewer EPs than full albums have the level of coverage required, although there are exceptions to that statement.
 * The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart: There wasn't any indication of this in the article, sourced or otherwise. Unless the South African music charts are different to those of other countries, EPs don't tend to chart as readily as albums or singles.
 * The recording has been certified gold or higher in at least one country: Again, no indication of this in the article. I feel it would be unlikely, to be honest, as a gold or higher certification tends to be based on sales, and thus feed into chart position.
 * The recording has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award: Also no indication of this in the article.
 * The recording was performed in a medium that is notable...: In theory (and remembering that there are no indications of this in the article), this may qualify, as films and TV series often have unexpected theme music. That said, do also remember that this criterion in full indicates that if the "theme-ness" of the recording is its only claim to fame, it's generally seen as better to have the article redirect to the one on the film or series in question.
 * The recording was in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network: Also no indication of this in the article, but I could see this being a potential option as well. There are, after all, any number of radio stations around these days, so assuming that a major one had this specific recording in rotation, there you are.
 * The recording has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network: Again, no indication in the article, but I would suggest this is comparatively unlikely.
 * The other points to remember here are that, again per the standards I've linked you to, "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article", and the fact that notability is not automatically inherited. In other words, this article again needs to be more than the simple fact of the EP's existence and the fact that it's by a notable group (I live under a rock as far as current music is concerned, but I've at least heard of them) doesn't automatically mean that it gets a standalone article.
 * So where to from here? I'd make a couple of suggestions. The first would be to double-check anything you're unsure of with the two users involved in the tagging and redirection, as I'm sure they've done a more thorough search than I just did to look at those notability standards. Secondly, if you can find and add sources confirming the EP's notability in light of those standards, there's nothing to stop you restoring the article as it was pre-redirect and adding the sources in. Do remember that you'll need the sources, though, because simply restoring the article as-was will probably give the same result. I'd also suggest that if an article you create gets PROD'd again (hey, we've all been there, trust me), take that as a chance to discuss with the user involved what their concerns are and see if you can't improve the article that way - it's usually easier to do that closer to the time, rather than 3 months later.
 * Last but not least, if you have any questions about what I said here, feel free to ask. Always happy to help where I can. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thorough response! I looked into this well after it actually happened as I was busy at the time and it just slipped my mind. Finally getting back to it, I reached out to you as you were the user who initially reviewed the article and I think I mistook that as meaning you made the final call on the redirect. I can see in the article history that this is not the case. Again, thank you for the thoughtful response. If I may ask a followup question: I would really like for the chronology of the band to be in a state of cohesion--do you know if it is standard practice for EPs to be included in that portion of artist discographies on Wikipedia (Last album, This album, Next album)? Because if not, the problem would be solved as all of their full LPs have independent articles, in addition to 1 major mixtape of theirs. I would just edit out the EP links between album #1 and album #2 and close that gap. Thanks again! JesseKramme (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That explains why you asked me! And also why there was a faint thought in the back of my mind "this looks familiar". In answer to your question, do you mean on the infobox along with the other data about the album, or in a table in the article about the artist itself? The latter is a definite "yes" (although usually with the redirect, I've found over the years). The former I can't rightly say as I don't tend to do much editing in the music space. I've certainly seen "previous/next albums" in infoboxes which turn out to be redirects to the artist page, that I know. Possibly check with the relevant WikiProject, since they'll most likely have developed whatever the standard is. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Great! All good information. Thanks a lot BigHaz! JesseKramme (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Deleting Jim Leahy entry
Hello,

Just noticed that you deleted my wikipedia page back in July and was just wondering why? I'm not an active Wiki follower, but a US college student created the entry because I won the US ISAA Goalkeeper of the Year award in 1984 - the only lower level player to ever win the award in the US. It was more interesting than anything else. Because of the deletion, I am now the only winner not to have a corresponding link in Wikipedia when you read that article.

I had updated the entry with some career details because it occasionally came up when people googled my name. Just trying to figure out why.

Jim Leahy--Jpleahy (talk) 11:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the question. Just as a quick point, it's usually best if you're querying the deletion of an article to include a link to it, even if that's a "redlink" to the deleted page - just makes life a little faster to be able to bring the page up and see what the story is.
 * Looking at the article, I can see that it had been proposed for deletion due to (quoting the rationale) the fact that it "Lacks coverage in independent secondary sources". As per the PROD policy, if that tag stays on an article for more than 7 days without being removed, then an admin can review the article and work out if it should be deleted for the reason listed. You're right that I was "johnny on the spot" there.
 * While the article talked about your sporting career - playing, coaching and administration - the only source or external link included at the time was to the Leahy Management Group, rather than anything specifically discussing your earlier achievements (which, reading the article and your comment here, are the claim to fame you have, not to disparage any work you've done outside of the sporting world). Furthermore, going back to that deletion rationale, the fact that there wasn't that level of coverage included at the time was the major concern, hence the deletion.
 * You've mentioned you're not the most active Wikipedia user - which I sometimes think is a good thing, so please don't feel you need to apologise for it! That being the case, please free free to ask for clarification on anything I've said here. There's a fair bit of policy and maybe too much jargon involved, and I don't want you to end up with the wrong impression. I will say, too, that given what you're telling me there's a distinct possibility that there could be an article written about you again, depending on what kinds of sources there are out there. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Metric Pixel Canvas
I just noticed the deletion of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_Pixel_Canvas, and would like to discuss with you the most appropriate way to preserve access to this material. I can find it via the Wayback machine, but that's clunky.

I may be the only person using this scheme, but I find it too elegant to let die to procedure. I have not been able to find any references to it outside of Wikipedia, and have been unable to track down the supposed author of the standard. Is there a way to access the deleted page's edit history, so that I might find the editor that first posted it?

If not, what are the procedures for duplicating the content on a site I maintain? What sort of CC notice do I need to provide? Peter K. Sheerin 20:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Good questions, I must say, and I'm not always going to be the best person to answer them, particularly when matters of copyright come into play. In terms of preservation of access, one option would simply be to create another version of the article right here on Wikipedia. Probably not advisable, to be honest, given the issues which caused the initial version to be deleted and your comment that there don't seem to be any references to it outside of Wikipedia. I've had a look at the history of the page, but haven't found anything promising regarding the original author - the account which seems to have created the article has been inactive for a very long time, which suggests that messaging them wouldn't get any kind of a result. As far as duplication elsewhere, the best I can do is point you to the copyright policy, which would hopefully answer any questions you'd have in that direction. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * can you point me to the original author's account? The furthest I've gotten in tracking down Mr. Pennekamp is that it seems likely he has passed (if I've got the right one, of several). If the wikipeida author is different, that's the only thread I have to go on to track down other citations.
 * That's also the name on the account which created the article, so I think that also explains the inactivity. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey
Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg 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.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

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

Anonymous comment from the wrong place
hey there. please email me i dont see your email on your page. [email address redacted] thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.249.179.29 (talk • contribs)
 * Hi. I've moved your comment to the bottom of the page in a new section, rather than where you'd placed it, in order to make it clearer what's going on. In future, might I also recommend "signing" your comments, by typing the tilde character (~) four times? I've also removed your email address, as this is a public page and you may not wish to receive vast amounts of emails from other sources.
 * As far as emailing you is concerned, while I'm happy to do so, I'd require some context in relation to what this would be all about first, as this may be just as easily resolved here, rather than by email. Is there a particular article you're concerned about, or the activities of a particular user (including me) which you would like some clarification or advice regarding? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)