User talk:Chrisdevelop/Archive 1

Unspecified source/license for File:Derek Portrait.png
Thanks for uploading File:Derek Portrait.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 23:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Derek Portrait.png


A tag has been placed on File:Derek Portrait.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Save Sibelius


A tag has been placed on Save Sibelius requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 04:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Save Sibelius for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Save Sibelius is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Save Sibelius until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 04:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Save Sibelius DRV
You already started a conversation about this at Deletion review/Log/2017 December 22. Please just let it run its course. Forking the conversation to another talk page isn't useful. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed, and the text will now be moved over to that page, however this was requested by one of the Admin as being the correct place to be holding the discussion as at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&action=edit&section=23 Chrisdevelop (talk)
 * Chris, I love you like a brother, but you GOTTA STOP pinging me in conversations related to this matter. All I did was close a discussion in which (as the DRV shows) there was a clear consensus to merge. The rest of it simply does not concern me, and I am way too busy with other things to delve into it. Thank you, and good luck. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Crush (1992 film)
Hi. Please do not use IMDB as a source, as it will be removed, as it is user-generated and is not considered a reliable source. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is itself user-generated. Can you please supply a link to an article that sets out the official Wikipedia policy on IMDb referencing? Chrisdevelop (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for April 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joe Layton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hamilton ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Joe_Layton check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Joe_Layton?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

13 Daughters
Thanks for your thanks, and for developing 13 Daughters. I notice you wrote the Mahalo album was of the Broadway cast. As far as I can tell, it's of a Hawaiian production. I'm basing that mostly on the Amazon listing and album cover showing Alvina Kaulili as musical director, not Pembroke Davenport. Station1 (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Good to hear from you. That was the result of merging two sentences, and you're right. I'll see if I can revert the edit, otherwise will reinstate it manually. Regards Chrisdevelop (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorted that, I think. Not sure what to do with the sentence ending " as HCCA Presents 13 Daughters" as it doesn't appear in any of the articles linked to that I can find. Chrisdevelop (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it looks ok now. I took the "HCCA Presents" directly from the album cover as shown in refs 9 and 10, but it's not necessary. Station1 (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

TheFamousPeople.com as a source
Hi Chrisdevelop. I noticed that you recently used thefamouspeople.com as a source in Don Ameche. Please note that there is general consensus that thefamouspeople.com does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for such information. (Discussions here and here). The johnlearn.com source you used appears similarly poor. If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

On checking the Family Guy wiki at http://familyguy.wikia.com/wiki/Carter_Pewterschmidt and extensive googling, I can find no reference to this other than recursive to the article, so it's probably myth. I've deleted the quote. Chrisdevelop (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Derek Williams (musician) (April 9)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.


 * Draft:Derek Williams (musician) may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Chrisdevelop Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shadowowl&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Chrisdevelop reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

&raquo; Shadowowl  &#124;  talk  15:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The Discogs copyright issue arose because I supplied Dr Williams with a draft of my opening introduction for him to verify its accuracy, which he then paraphrased and submitted to Discogs, without realising this would infringe copyright. I am the sole author of the material. Dr Williams has now arranged for this to be removed, so the only copy should now be that on Wikipedia. Chrisdevelop (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Nigel Osborne and Brian Eno.png
Thanks for uploading File:Nigel Osborne and Brian Eno.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text  below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ron h jones (Talk) 19:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your message and the detailed instructions. I'm afraid I find the use of images on Wikipedia to be a daunting minefield with novel-sized articles to read, at the end of which I feel I am none the wiser.  I can't help wondering whether that is a reason for the paucity of images in articles.  In the present case, I could not find anything called "replaceable fair use template" or a form that resembled one, on the page at the file description page, so could you please provide the exact heading and location to enter the dispute? I don't want get it in the wrong place and have the image deleted before I can figure it out.  So far as finding a free copy of this image is concerned, I can say now, and of course will say again, when I know the exact location to say it, there is no freely available image I have been able to find of Brian Eno and Nigel Osborne working together in the aftermath of the Bosnian war with war traumatised children.  Every time I search for it, I end up here:   which takes me to here:  .  Even if were to find a duplicate of this image on a "free to download" site, it would likely be bootleg, and I actually know the image owner as it is already.  To my knowledge, this photograph is unique, but if this warning is being raised on the knowledge that there IS a freely available image of Brian Eno and Nigel Osborne working together in the aftermath of the Bosnian war with war traumatised children, then without hesitation, I will replace the one I have uploaded with the free copy while we sort out what to do with this one.


 * In regards to obtaining the permission of the copyright owner, Keith Brame, Professor Osborne contacted him, since Brame is a friend of his, and the thread of his email granting permission was copied into the justification field at upload time to Wikipedia. I did not realise when uploading the image that this private thread would be posted publicly on the File Info page, and so I would like as soon as possible for it to be erased, once the image matter has been settled.


 * From what I can ascertain, we need to find the right boxes/buttons to check so that this image can be released. I note in the article you linked me to, it says that "we" (meaning, presumably, Wikipedia staff) contact the copyright owner, also that the image will be downsized by a bot, rather than deleted.  Might it be better to re-upload with different options?


 * For now, I have placed a note "by permission" under the image in both its locations, with a link direct to Brame's website. To forestall having the image taken down in the meantime, I will certainly follow your advice, once I know exactly where to insert the  text.


 * Many thanks! Chrisdevelop (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I note on the the file description page the following message has appeared: "The previous version(s) of this file are non-free and are no longer being used in articles. Therefore, they fail the Wikipedia non-free content criteria and will be deleted on April 23, 2018. The current version will not be deleted, only previous revision(s)." Is this referring to the bot-generated reduced size image?  If that is not going to be deleted, then I am happy to just leave it at that, as the reduced size image is suffient to illustrate the collaboration, and I will leave the link to Brame's website so users can buy the full-sized version should they wish it.  Is my understanding correct, that the smaller image size no longer violates the non-free use policy?  Thanks again.  Chrisdevelop (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The way to object to the "replaceable" tag is to add what the tag says to add! - i.e. add . Place it under the di-replaceable banner - i.e.line 2 of the image description page. In general we don't allow non-free images of Living People. If it is necessary, then there needs to be critical commentary in the article about the image. Non-free images cannot be used as "decorations". Wikipedia has a far stricter non-free policy than the US requires.
 * The orphaned image is the unused one, not the current one. Non-free should be <100,000 pixels
 * If you can get permission as a free image, then the copyright holder needs to go to Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries - this is the only way of adding permission - text on the image page will be ignored. Do note that forwarded e-mails will not be accepted as they can be (and have been) abused too easily. If you get the free image permission, then do ask for the big version to be restored. Ron h jones (Talk) 22:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. If I can be sure the bot-reduced thumb will remain, and there won't be a hole left in its place, then I'm inclined not to persevere any further to restore the full size image, as the link to Brame's website will allow him to benefit from inquiries for this and other image sales further down the track.  Good suggestion about adding critical commentary on the image to the article, even where not mandated for retaining non-free use images.  I'll be re-examining all my uploaded images with this in mind.  I did a bit of work on that on Eno's page, including citing an Independent article detailing the collaboration, since up to that point it was devoid of all mention of his association with Edinburgh, but have yet to do likewise with Osborne's.  Currently seeking a way to link to images back and forth from within the article other than with standard branching to sections, but that can be tonight's homework, unless you have an article you can point me to!  Regards Chrisdevelop (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Have I misunderstood? From "The orphaned image is the unused one, not the current one. Non-free should be <100,000 pixels" I understood that only the large original would be deleted (which had already occurred by the time this warning was issued to me), and the thumbnail version would remain.  I left a direct link to the image owner's site which displays the full size image, and allows users the means to purchase it, so I don't understand how I infringed his copyright.  If anything, the opposite has occurred in Wikipedia's protection of his copyright by removing the thumbnail, because now, no-one will hear of him, and he will receive no sales of this image.  The entire image has instead been vacated, and left a rather nasty hole.  Chrisdevelop (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You understood correctly. It was not due to me (or my bot) - . I did say we don't allow non free images of Living Persons (except in very rare circumstances), looks like others have agreed. If you can get permission for the image to be free, then the permissions team will undelete. There's not much else you can do. Ron h jones (Talk) 18:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The photographer Keith Brame has managed to find a place in his travels to log on and upload his image to Flickr, and has set the Attributions to Creative Commons Share-alike, and so I have replaced the previous image with this one on both the Nigel Osborne and Brian Eno articles.  Would you mind taking a look and confirming that this is now ok?  Regards. Chrisdevelop (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm glad he had an established Flickr account (one image on a new account might have been viewed in a different light - it happens!). It will get moved to commons, as we don't keep free images on Wikipedia - nothing for you to do, it will all work OK. Ron h jones (Talk) 18:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Fabulous, thank you! Chrisdevelop (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert Shaw (conductor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Shaw ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Robert_Shaw_%28conductor%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Robert_Shaw_%28conductor%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Fixed 22 April 2018, also at Draft:Derek Williams (musician) Chrisdevelop (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

LGBT people
Please note that Category:LGBT people is not for heterosexual people who derived part or all of their notability from making controversial comments about LGBT people — it is only for people who are openly self-identified as being LGBT people. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this notification. If you read the Draft:Derek_Williams_(musician) section of my article, you will note that Dr Williams satisfies this criterion for the category of self-identification as LGBT. There are many citations of newspaper sources to this effect, including numerous radio an interviews, two of which are cited in the article, and a full page story on him, linked to in the opening paragraph:

Skiffington, Toni. (1 February 1997). 'Derek came out to find success and become a role model'. Page 14 (full page). The Daily Post (Rotorua, New Zealand)'’


 * Thanks. Chrisdevelop (talk) 08:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not the issue. My comment was about Salawa Abeni ‎and Olajumoke Orisaguna having been added to the LGBT people category, not a draft which shouldn't be in any categories anyway. Bearcat (talk) 08:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I’ll fix that. Thanks. Re my draft article, the LGBT category is only listed in the draft mode, not yet published, as per

Category:Wikipedia drafts.
 * Chrisdevelop (talk) 08:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And Category:Homophobia explicitly states "it must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly homophobic." StAnselm (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there another category you can recommend that could suit this current situation (and a considerable number like it)? If there isn’t one to cover notable people making inflammatory public statements against LGBT minorities, could, or should a new one be created? And is there a place where one can test the attributes of a category before assigning it?  Chrisdevelop (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * People are categorized by their defining characteristics, not by "keywording" every general subject area that the article's content happens to touch on. The way to test the attributes of a category, in terms of determining whether it's appropriate to apply to an article or not, is to say to yourself in your head "[Person's name] is a(n) [Category]" — if that results in a statement that is not an accurate description of what the person literally is (e.g. "John Doe is an LGBT person", but he isn't), or if it results in a statement that doesn't even make grammatical sense at all (e.g. "John Doe is a homophobia"), then it's not an appropriate category. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And there are obvious reasons why we don't have Category:Homophobes. StAnselm (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)a
 * Thanks both, for your explanations of the policy on Categories. As you mention, I see that category (homophobes) was deleted on POV (and other) grounds after some debate.  But ‘Persons opposing LGBT Rights’ was likewise deleted with no objections.  The category “homophobic slurs” has survived, but in light of your earlier clarification, one can’t say that so-and-so “is a homophobic slur”.  Nigeria and 75 other countries are surely notable enough for their state sponsored persecution of LGBT minorities to warrant a category, so what I am seeking is an expeditious means of search for a suitable category for a notable person who has a view on homosexuality.  Both the edits I made relate to Category:Views on homosexuality, but strictly speaking could not themselves be said to BE ipso facto a “view on homosexuality” so much as to espouse them.  Is it specific that the subject has to “be” the category, or can they belong to it or espouse it? Chrisdevelop (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain your reversion of my edit of the Category:Views on homosexuality? Criterion is “This category is for articles dealing with the views on homosexuality expressed by particular individuals.”  Thank you.  Chrisdevelop (talk) 07:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the main reason is that it is a category of views rather than people. I think the category should be restricted to those views which are notable. There are thousands of people with public views on homosexuality but we don't include all their articles in this category. Why these two people in particular? StAnselm (talk) 08:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * These two people came to my notice in the course of editing something else, and given the topical nature of the controversy (Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting 2018), I was looking for a suitable category to place them in. Of course there are thousands, indeed probably billions of people with views on homosexuality, but obviously they aren’t all notable enough to have Wikipedia articles written about them.  The two notables in question are both Nigerian, and the Islamic states within Nigeria impose the death penalty for same-sex relationships, yet one of the notables is involved with Islamic music, which flies contrary to Islamic prohibitions on music (“Forbidden music is the music that is suitable for entertainment and amusement gatherings, even if it does not arouse sexual temptations.”).  The views of Abeni were reported by News Agency of Nigeria.  The relevance of these two is their capacity to influence popular animus against LGBT minorities in Africa, and had this addition been successful for Category:Views on homosexuality I would have continued to add other notables who had expressed potentially controversial or influential views on homosexuality.  Santorum is a case in point, and I do see that there is a separate article dedicated just to his views on homosexuality, which could justifiably be merged with the main article on him, and a redirect to that as a section, since he is not an acknowledged expert on the subject, merely someone with an opinion.  My two additions are nowhere near as famous as either Santorum or Freud, but I thought them of relevance because of their links to Africa, the UK Commonwealth, and Islam.  Their pronouncements have far greater public influence in that country than were similar statements to be made in first world, high income countries.  Do you have a suggestion for an alternative category for cases such as this? Chrisdevelop (talk) 08:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you receive my reply above? Moving on, I would have thought the likes of Fred Phelps would be a worthy addition to this category, since although he was not "a view" per se, he certainly HAD a notable view ("God hates fags"), and was notable for that and for gatecrashing funerals, yet he isn't listed in this category.  It seems inconceivable that only 3 people in the Wikipedia gallery of notables have expressed notable views on homosexuality.  Robert Mugabe is another who springs to mind.  Other notables with equally notable views must surely include Anita Bryant and Harvey Milk, according to the criterion stated on Category:Views on homosexuality, that “This category is for articles dealing with the views on homosexuality expressed by particular individuals.”  It doesn't appear to necessitate that the title of the article should contain the literal words "views on homosexuality".  Rick Santorum is not "a view", he is a person with a view, no more famously so than the others I mention above.  I would have thought the category a perfect fit for all these notable individuals with notable views on homosexuality.  Otherwise, with only three entries, this category appears to have little to no value.  Chrisdevelop (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's not Santorum who's in the category, but the Rick Santorum's views on homosexuality article. In answer to your previous question, I think the community consensus is not to categorise people in that way. StAnselm (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, I get the ad hominem part, hence your earlier comment about there being no category for "homophobes". But if the views themselves are notable, and are a defining characteristic, such as those of Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church, or Anita Bryant or Harvey Milk, and perhaps summarised in a section within an article as distinct from the title of the article itself, what then?  Does there have to be an article precisely entitled "Anita Bryant's views on homosexuality"?  Her views are discussed within the existing article.  I am struggling to see the usefulness of this category with currently only three, disconnected entries, with one a redirect.  Someone looking for articles like this would surely be incredulous that only three notables on Wikipedia expressed notable views on homosexuality. Chrisdevelop (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Derek Williams (musician) (May 15)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dane was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Derek Williams (musician) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Derek Williams (musician), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Derek_Williams_(musician) Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dane&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Derek_Williams_(musician) reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

--  Dane talk  19:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for not deleting this article outright, and allowing me to improve it. I will go back to the drawing board and heavily prune the article to address the issues raised and then resubmit. While I appreciated the Herculean efforts made by to edit and improve the piece, I didn't enjoy some of the dialogue we had leading up to it, and I'd frankly prefer to repair the article myself and learn from the experience along the way. This was how I had envisaged the review process working. I think a lot of the problem with the excessive detail (which I strenuously tried to avoid by the way), has arisen because I began with Derek Williams' website as the core of my information. Not sure what you mean by "Submission has previously appeared under different titles", as this hasn't been submitted anywhere else on Wikipedia but here. If you're referring to the previous CopyVio decline notice, that has already been addressed by the removal of external copies of my opening paragraph that I had supplied to Williams for him to paraphrase on his website and on Discogs. I was unaware that this would flag as a copyright violation, but it's not in either of those two places anymore. Chrisdevelop (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Deletion pending for File:Derek Williams Barrie, Caroline, Derek exiting RAH.png
Hello, Chrisdevelop. Some time ago, a file you uploaded &mdash; File:Derek Williams Barrie, Caroline, Derek exiting RAH.png &mdash; was tagged with OTRS pending, indicating that you (or perhaps the copyright holder if you did not create this image) submitted a statement of permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Though there is often a backlog processing messages received at this address, we should have received your message by now.


 * If you have not submitted (or forwarded) a statement of permission, please send it immediately to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.


 * If you have already sent this message, it is possible that there was a problem receiving it. Please re-send it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If we don't hear from you within one week, the file will be deleted. If we can help you, please feel free to ask at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Image source problem with File:Nigel's programme entry.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Nigel's programme entry.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Derek Williams (musician) concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Derek Williams (musician), a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Derek Williams (musician)


Hello, Chrisdevelop. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Derek Williams".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Appeal of your merge
At WP:AN an editor is requesting that your merge be undone by an admin to allow further discussion. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the courtesy of your request, however this close has been already reverted by another editor. Best wishes. Chrisdevelop (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

30 million results in 0.4 seconds
Hi, Chrisdevelop, thanks for your comment at Talk:LGBT ideology. Using and interpreting search engine hit counts is fraught with problems for non-specialists. What looks at first blush like 30M results, is actually closer to 160 results. I can go into the reasons for this more at length another time, but two tips at the outset: 1. double-quote your phrase; 2. try jumping straight to the last page of results (usually page 10) to see if there's anything actually there; if there is, keep jumping, till you get to the last page that still contains bolded snippets matching your search terms. That's closer to the actual number of results. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 02:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I get it
About this comment, I hear your cry of frustration. Sometimes walking away is the best, and you have to do what's right for you, I just wanted to say I value your voice there. Hope our paths cross again, whether there, or somewhere else. Happy editing, Mathglot (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Derek Williams (musician)


Hello, Chrisdevelop. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Derek Williams".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 18:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Article Draft:Derek Williams (musician) deleted
This has been pulled down to allow another editor to have a go. I see this is now up at Derek Williams (musician) Chrisdevelop (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC+10)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Derek Williams (musician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Sherman. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you. This has now been fixed. Chrisdevelop (talk) 07:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Category:Asset stripping has been nominated for merging
Category:Asset stripping has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Estopedist1 (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

People associated with Foo university
I see that you are adding various people to the category "People associated with Foo university". This is a parent category for staff and alumni, and it should not contain any entries (unless those sub-categories don't exist). Can you please go back over your edits and self-revert?

I have reverted your edit to Colin Cole (fashion designer) and I note that the article does not even mention him attending university. As such, you adding the category is inappropriate in the first instance as categories should reflect what the prose says, and not provide information beyond the prose. Please be more discerning when adding categories.  Schwede 66  22:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Cole was added because he was the uniform designer for the Auckland University Festival Choir, thereby 'associating' him with the University, and this IS mentioned in the article. In terms of your own argument, if he had attended Auckkland University, he would have been categorised under Alumni. Can you please undo your reversion.
 * However I take your point already made by other editors about the other duplicates and I will plough through them one by one to remove those that are in the sub-category. Chrisdevelop (talk) 10:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * So Cole designed garments worn by the university's choir? That's too indirect an association with the institution in my opinion.  Schwede 66  11:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding User:Chrisdevelop/sandbox
Hello, Chrisdevelop. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that User:Chrisdevelop/sandbox, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Ring of Scorpio
I'm not going to revert you or ask you to self-revert, but if this is exactly how the show lays these words out, isn't that plagiarism? And is that OK? If so, OK! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. Plagiarism is submitting someone else's work as your own. Merely naming protagonists and production staff doesn't come under the umbrella of "someone's work" - otherwise the only place you could ever read credits would be on the work itself. Re the 'damn bullets' reversion, it is true that bullets should be used only for lists of three or more items, however, looking at the article as a whole, there are 10 bullets in all, so to take out the last two made them look as though they were not credited roles, so think of them as bullets 9 and 10 of a ten bullet list. I hope this clarifies! I agreed with your removal of the surplus section heading. Chrisdevelop (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That's reasonable enough for me! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rotorua Boys' High School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beijing Olympics.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:European Piano Teachers Association


A tag has been placed on Draft:European Piano Teachers Association requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://epta-europe.org/node/2 and I did not miss the request to ignore copyright violations. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. S Philbrick (Talk)  17:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * You gave me no time to respond - I'd only just started the article. I assumed an article in Draft was not public and therefore not subject to Copyright, so I copied the information from its source to start the article, so I didn't have to flick back and forth across various sources. I had no intention at all of publishing the material as it was, to the public. Can you please either remove or hide the section of the article body that contains the copyrighted information and reinstate the article, or undelete the article so I can do this myself? Chrisdevelop (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sphilbrick:Discussion moved here. Chrisdevelop (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I responded there.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  23:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It is high time we allowed Jimfbleak to cease to receive pings for this. Their talk page is not for this extended discussion. I am sure Sphilbrick will agree.
 * Chrisdevelop please re-read the first paragraph of the speedy deletion notice. The fundamental element is.
 * It does not say "Except for articles in sandboxes, in draft space, etc." The crystal clarity is there. I will try very hard in a moment to increase the clarity so that you see how important this is, and that there is no wiggle room. That will be in a new section here. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I am surprised to see that the discusssion is still going on. I hope it is now done. S Philbrick  (Talk)  12:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Copyright-problem.svg Your edit to Draft:European Piano Teachers Association has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information.  🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Notwithstanding all the foregoing, here and elsewhere, almost all the best editors have one apparently grievous error somewhere in their careers here. This bodes well for your future, and for any article you may create. Anyone who is not still learning how to do this is "unusual" and unlikely to improve. So go ahead and write the article in your own words. It will be the better for them. 😊 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone. I have put in a request at Requested_articles/music in the hope someone picks this up. I have done the same for another article I had been considering creating, but pulled down the draft for yesterday: Reid School of Music - Edinburgh University at WP:Requested_articles/music. Chrisdevelop (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, why not do it yourself? 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)



Gertrude206 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.